On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 22:41, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 20:12, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 15:46, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I am seeing two approaches emerging. One is where pickle contains all > >>>>> Python code and then uses something like use_extension to make sure > >>>>> the original Python objects are still reachable at some point. This > >>>>> has the drawback that you have to use some function to make the > >>>>> extensions happen and there is some extra object storage. > >>>>> > >>>>> The other approach is having pickle contain code known not to > >>>>> be overridden by anyone, import _pypickle for stuff that may be > >>>>> overridden, and then import _pickle for whatever is available. This > >>>>> approach has the perk of using a standard practice for how to pull in > >>>>> different implementation. But the drawback, thanks to how globals are > >>>>> bound, is that any code pulled in from _pickle/_pypickle will not be > >>>>> able to call into other optimized code; it's a take or leave it once > >>>>> the call chain enters one of those modules as they will always call > >>>>> the implementations in the module they originate from. > >>>> > >>>> To what extent do we care about being able to select Python-only on a > >>>> per-module basis, particularly in the face of threaded imports? That > >> is, > >>>> we could have a sys.python_only attribute that gets checked on import. > >>>> That's simple and direct, and even allows per-module switching if the > >>>> application really cares and import doesn't need to worry about > threads. > >>>> > >>>> Alternatively, sys.python_only could be a set, but that gets ugly > about > >>>> setting from the application. (The module checks to see whether it's > >>>> listed in sys.python_only.) > >>>> > >>>> Maybe we should move this discussion to python-ideas for now to kick > >>>> around really oddball suggestions? > >>> > >>> This is all about testing. If a change is made to some extension code > it > >>> should be mirrored in the Python code and vice-versa. > >> > >> Okay, I don't see how that is a response to my suggestion -- I can > >> imagine that someone might want to test a combination of pure-Python and > >> binary libraries. > > > > I don't want to move it because this isn't some idea for a new feature > that > > may or may not be useful; this isn't an "idea", it's needed. > > That's fine, but what about my idea of using sys.python_only?
But what is it supposed to represent? That only pure Python modules get imported? What if the module depends on another module that is an extension module? -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
