On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:53, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:37, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:31, Daniel Stutzbach < > >> dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> A slight change would make it work for modules where only key functions > >>> have been rewritten. For example, pickle.py could read: > >>> > >>> from _pypickle import * > >>> try: from _pickle import * > >>> except ImportError: pass > >> > >> True, although that still suffers from the problem of overwriting things > >> like __name__, __file__, etc. > > > > Actually, I take that back; the IMPORT_STAR opcode doesn't pull in > anything > > starting with an underscore. So while this alleviates the worry above, it > > does mean that anything that gets rewritten needs to have a name that > does > > not lead with an underscore for this to work. Is that really an > acceptable > > compromise for a simple solution like this? > > Doesn't __all__ control this?
If you define it, yes. But there is another issue with this: the pure Python code will never call the extension code because the globals will be bound to _pypickle and not _pickle. So if you have something like:: # _pypickle def A(): return _B() def _B(): return -13 # _pickle def _B(): return 42 # pickle from _pypickle import * try: from _pickle import * except ImportError: pass If you import pickle and call pickle.A() you will get -13 which is not what you are after. -Brett
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
