[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Changes by irdb : -- nosy: +irdb ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Well, I want backwards-compatibility *now*, not forever. I don't think changing a function signature in an incompatible way is generally acceptable. You might make one of the arguments optional, though (but keeping the current semantics when the

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:51, Antoine Pitrou rep...@bugs.python.orgwrote: Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Well, I want backwards-compatibility *now*, not forever. I don't think changing a function signature in an

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: David, did you find load_source() convenient because you could specify the file to use for the module's source? Did you actually like the file object argument? Just trying to gauge if some new API is needed on a loader of if the one-liner I

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: The one-liner is good enough, but... The use case is indeed loading a module from an arbitrary file without having to worry about sys.path, etc. For that load_source is intuitive. The one-liner is an adequate substitute, but feels

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: The one-liner is an adequate substitute, but feels like a step backward for this particular use case. That is, load_source is a *convenience* function, from my POV :) Agreed with David. -- ___

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: To help refine this, so you would expect all of the usual import stuff (e.g. sys.modules use, generating bytecode, etc.), you just want a short-circuit to the loading when you happen to already know the name and desired file path? Basically I

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: Well, if you want backward compatibility, you pretty much have to keep it as is, don't you? This is the only time I've used load_source, and it was used because we didn't want to bother mucking with the path but did want to load the

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: Well, I want backwards-compatibility *now*, not forever. And no, it is not an obvious API as you are asking for what loaders are supposed to do; load a module, which is why the one-liner I gave you works today. Finder simply find a loader that

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

New submission from R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com: This was removed in 2cf7bb2bbfb8 along with a bunch of other functions. Yet in issue 13959 Brett mentions needing to implement it. I don't see any replacement for its functionality in importlib, so I would think it would be a

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Hmm, yes, I don't remember exactly why, but it seems they were deprecated (obsolete), so it sounds reasonable to un-document them. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: OK, the text at the start of the section, that I didn't notice in the 2.7 docs, says they are obsolete and replaced by find_module and import_module. But load_source is much more convenient, so I for one am not going to remove my use

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: Once importlib bootstrapping lands and I expose the rest of the API you can replace imp.load_source() w/ importlib.SourceFileLoader(name, path).load_module(name) and get the same result. -- ___

[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

Changes by Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +eric.snow ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue14551 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list