[Python-Dev] Release manager pronouncement needed: PEP 302 Fix

[Neal Norwitz]

What is the behaviour that was added which broke compliance?  What is
the benefit of the behaviour?

>From your description of fixing the problem, it seems there's some
risk invovled as it's modiyfing import.c, plus adding new features.
What is your recommendation?

n
--

On 7/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> I posted last week about a need-for-speed patch that broke PEP 302
> compliance, and asked if it should be fixed or reverted.  I got exactly one
> response which said "yes, it should be fixed or reverted", which
> unfortunately didn't answer my question as to which one we should do.  :)
>
> If we don't revert it, there are two ways to fix it.  One is to just change
> PEP 302 so that the behavior is unbroken by definition.  :)  The other is
> to actually go ahead and fix it by adding PathImporter and NullImporter
> types to import.c, along with a factory function on sys.path_hooks to
> create them.  (This would've been the PEP-compliant way to implement the
> need-for-speed patch.)
>
> So, "fix" by documentation, fix by fixing, or fix by reverting?  Which
> should it be?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/nnorwitz%40gmail.com
>