On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now, regarding the signature of exec_module(): I'm back to believing > that loaders should receive a clear indication that a reload is taking > place. Legacy loaders have to figure that out for themselves (by > seeing that the module already exists in sys.modules), but we can do > better for the new API by making the exec_module signature look like: > > def exec_module(self, module, previous_spec=None): > # module is as per the current PEP 451 text > # previous_spec would be set *only* in the reload() case > # loaders that don't care still need to accept it, but can > just ignore it
Just to be clear, this means that a lazy import implementation that creates a module object without a __spec__ in the first place will look like an initial import? Or will that crash importlib because of a missing __spec__ attribute? That is, is reload()'s contract adding a new prerequisite for the object passed to it? (The specific use case is creating a ModuleType subclass instance for lazy importing upon attribute access. Pre-importlib, all that was needed was a working __name__ attribute on the module.) _______________________________________________ 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
