Antoine Pitrou, 24.08.2013 15:00: > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:51:42 +0200 > Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Antoine Pitrou, 24.08.2013 13:53: >>> This would also imply extension module have to be subclasses of the >>> built-in module type. They can't be arbitrary objects like Stefan >>> proposed. I'm not sure what the latter enables, but it would probably >>> make things more difficult internally. >> >> My line of thought was more like: if Python code can stick anything into >> sys.modules and the runtime doesn't care, why can't extension modules stick >> anything into sys.modules as well? >> >> I can't really see the advantage of requiring a subtype here. Or even just >> a type, as I said. > > sys.modules doesn't care indeed. There's still the whole > extension-specific code, though, i.e. the eternal PyModuleDef store > and the state management routines. How much of it would remain with > your proposal?
PEP 3121 would no longer be necessary. Extension types can do all we need. No more special casing of modules, that was the idea. Stefan _______________________________________________ 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
