On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2013 02:37, "PJ Eby" <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: >> >> 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.) > > For custom loaders, that's part of the contract for create_module() (since > you'll get an ordinary module otherwise),
Huh? I don't understand where custom loaders come into it. For that matter, I don't understand what "get an ordinary module object" means here, either. I'm talking about userspace code that implements lazy importing features, like the lazyModule() function in this module: http://svn.eby-sarna.com/Importing/peak/util/imports.py?view=markup Specifically, I'm trying to get an idea of how much that code will need to change under the PEP (and apparently under importlib in general). > and so long as *setting* the > special module attributes doesn't cause the module to be imported during the > initial load operation, attribute access based lazy loading will work fine > (and you don't even have to set __name__, since the import machinery will > take care of that). There's no "initial load operation", just creation of a dummy module and stuffing it into sys.modules. The way it works is that in, say, foo/__init__.py, one uses: bar = lazyModule('foo.bar') baz = lazyModule('foo.baz') Then anybody importing 'foo.bar' or 'foo.baz' (or using "from foo import bar", etc.) ends up with the lazy module. That is, it's for lazily exposing APIs, not something used as an import hook. > For module level lazy loading that injects a partially initialised module > object into sys.modules rather than using a custom loader or setting a > __spec__ attribute, yes, the exec_module invocation on reloading would > always look like a fresh load operation (aside from the fact that the custom > instance would already be in sys.modules from the first load operation). Right. > It *will* still work, though (at least, it won't break any worse than such > code > does today, since injecting a replacement into sys.modules really isn't > reload friendly in the first place). Wait, what? Who's injecting a replacement into sys.modules? A replacement of what? Or do you mean that loaders aren't supposed to create new modules, but use the one in sys.modules? Honestly, I'm finding all this stuff *really* confusing, which is kind of worrying. I mean, I gather I'm one of the handful of people who really understood how importing *used to work*, and I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my brain around the new world. (Granted, I think that may be because I understand how a lot of old corner cases work, but what's bugging me is that I no longer understand how those old corners work under the new regime, nor do I feel I understand what the *new* corners will be. This may also just be communication problems, and the fact that it's been months since I really walked through importlib line by line, and have never really walked through it (or PEP 451) quite as thoroughly as I have import.c. I also seem to be having trouble grokking why the motivating use cases for PEP 451 can't be solved by just providing people with good base classes to use for writing loaders -- i.e., I don't get why the core protocol has to change to address the use case of writing loaders more easily. The new protocol seems way more complex than PEP 302, and ISTM the complexity could just be pushed off to the loader side of the protocol without creating more interdependency between importlib and the loaders.) _______________________________________________ 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
