On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that: > > 1. The old __name__ based behaviour was broken (since __name__ may not > be the actual module name, as in "__main__" or when a pseudo-module is > lying about its identity) > 2. The 3.3 behaviour is still broken for similar reasons *and* added > the dependency on __loader__ > 3. Even PEP 451 still underspecifies the semantics of reloading (e.g. > it's implied create_module isn't called for reload(), but not stated > explicitly) > > Accordingly, I think we should add a "How Reloading Will Work" > section, akin to the existing "How Loading Will Work" > (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0451/#how-loading-will-work). We > may also want to spit out some import warnings for edge cases that are > likely to do the wrong thing.
I'm tempted to just say reload should not be a blocker for PEP 451. The premise is that the PEP mostly maintains the status quo, just shifting reload-based-on-loader to reload-based-on-spec (it's still "*load* the same way you did the first time"). I agree that it would be worth getting reload working right, but I'm not convinced it's worth it to delay PEP 451 more for the sake of reload. > > Side note: in "How Loading Will Work", _init_module_attrs needs to be > passed both the module *and* the spec (current text only passes it the > module). Good catch. Fixed! > It also needs to be updated to handle the namespace package > case (as shown below) I knew I missed something. I'll fix this, but it may be a couple days before I get a minute. :( -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
