On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 October 2013 08:51, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: >> Yeah, it actually was to ensure that you could reload a module using a >> different loader than the one that originally loaded it, e.g. due to a >> change in path hooks, etc. > > Yeah, the rationale makes sense, we only missed it due to the lack of > a regression test for the behaviour.
I put up a patch that should fix this without a lot of work, including a test that would have caught this. http://bugs.python.org/issue19413 -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
