On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:35:48 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, antoine.pitrou
> <python-check...@python.org> wrote:
> > +Serializing "pseudo-global" objects
> > +-----------------------------------
> > +
> > +Objects which are not module-global, but should be treated in a similar
> > +fashion -- such as methods [4]_ or nested classes -- cannot currently be
> > +pickled (or, rather, unpickled) because the pickle protocol does not
> > +correctly specify how to retrieve them. One solution would be through the
> > +adjunction of a ``__namespace__`` (or ``__qualname__``) to all class and
> > +function objects, specifying the full "path" by which they can be
> > retrieved.
> > +For globals, this would generally be ``"{}.{}".format(obj.__module__,
> > obj.__name__)``.
> > +Then a new opcode can resolve that path and push the object on the stack,
> > +similarly to the GLOBAL opcode.
> > +
>
> I think this is the part that ties in with the pickle-related aspects
> for PEP 395 - using '__qualname__' would be one way to align a
> module's real name with where it should be retrieved from and where
> it's documentation lives (I like 'qualified name' as a term, too).
Oops, I admit I hadn't read PEP 395.
PEP 395 focuses on module aliasing, while the suggestion above focuses
on the path of objects in modules. How can we reconcile the two? Do we
want __qualname__ to be a relative "path" inside the module?
(but then __qualname__ cannot specify its own module name).
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
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
