2011/7/24 Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> > wrote: >> 2011/7/23 Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com>: >>> The documentation[1] doesn't say, but the implementation of the imp >>> module makes me wonder if sys.modules was not meant to be replaceable. >>> No doubt this has to do with its tie to the interpreter's modules >>> dict. I ran into this doing "sys.modules = sys.modules.copy()" to >>> protect the actual sys.modules dict during some import related test >>> cases. If the modules I imported were extension modules it broke. >>> >>> So, is sys.modules not meant to be open to re-binding? >> >> Not any more or less than other global mutable objects. You can expect >> other code to be holding on to old references. > > But, isn't sys.modules a little different because other modules (at > least the imp module) don't use it. From what I understand the > interpreter object's modules dict (to which sys.modules is initially > bound) is used directly instead. So rebinding sys.modules causes a > disconnect. That's why I am wondering if sys.modules is not meant to > be rebound.
Sure. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, though. > > Are there other objects in the interpreter state that are exposed in > sys that would have the same problem? Is it problematic? -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
