filecmp.cmp() cache

[Mattias Brändström]

On Feb 15, 11:43 pm, Peter Otten <__pete... at web.de> wrote:
> Mattias Brändström wrote:
> > Just one small tought/question. How likely am I to run into trouble
> > because of this? I mean, by setting _cache to another value I'm
> > mucking about in filecmp's implementation details. Is this generally
> > considered OK when dealing with Python's standard library?
>
> I think it's a feature that Python lends itself to monkey-patching, but
> still there are a few things to consider:
>
> - Every hack increases the likelihood that your app will break in the next
> version of Python.
> - You take some responsibility for the "patched" code. It's no longer the
> tried and tested module as provided by the core developers.
> - The module may be used elsewhere in the standard library or third-party
> packages, and failures (or in the above example: performance degradation)
> may ensue.
>
> For a script and a relatively obscure module like 'filecmp' monkey-patching
> is probably OK, but for a larger app or a module like 'os' that is heavily
> used throughout the standard lib I would play it safe and reimplement.

Thanks for the insight! Right now I need this for a unit test, so in
this case I'm quite happy to use the NoCache solution you suggested.

:.:: brasse