On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> > This does mean, though, that imp.cache_from_source() and > >> > imp.source_from_cache() might need to be updated to raise a reasonable > >> > exception when sys.implementation.cache_tag is set to None as I > believe > >> > right now it will raise a TypeError because None isn't a str. But what > >> > to > >> > raise instead? TypeError? EnvironmentError? > >> NotImplementedError seems fine for me too if we don't end up using this > >> flag. > > > > OK, that's 2 votes for that exception. > > + 1 from me as well, both for skipping any implicit reading or writing > of the cache when cache_tag is None (IIRC, that's the use case we had > in mind when we allowed that field to be None in the PEP 421 > discussion), and for *explicit* attempts to access the cache when the > tag is None triggering NotImplementedError. > > That way people are free to use either LBYL (checking cache_tag) or > EAFP (catching NotImplementedError). > I'm sold: http://bugs.python.org/issue15056 for tracking the change.
_______________________________________________ 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
