On 31 Oct 2013 18:52, "Eric Snow" <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There's also the option of implementing the constraint directly in the > > finder, which *does* have the necessary info (with the change to pass the > > previous spec to find_spec). > > Yeah, I thought of that. I just prefer the more explicit > supports_reload(). That said... > > > > > I still think it makes more sense to leave this out for the moment - it's > > not at all clear we need the extra method, and adding it later would be a > > straightforward protocol update. > > ...I agree that makes the most sense for now. :) > > BTW, thanks for pushing these issues. I think the API has gotten > pretty solid. I just need to make sure the PEP covers the cases and > conclusions we're discussing.
Thanks are also due to PJE for making me realise we were handwaving too much when it came to the expected reload semantics :) Cheers, Nick. > > -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