Why not allow empty code blocks?

[BartC]

On 03/08/2016 22:39, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:53 AM, BartC <bc at freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2016 21:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>
>>> Fairly common approach - and it means you'll never find those .py
>>> files. So it's no different from looking for sys.py and not finding
>>> it, except that in the case of CPython's sys, it's not even a DLL -
>>> it's part of the interpreter core.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand. With direct access to msvcrt.dll, the interface to that
>> will be inside a .py file. Not buried away somewhere else.
>
> Oh. CPython takes a much simpler approach: instead of forcing a Python
> module to "think like C", it allows a C module to export functions to
> Python. So when you "import math", you actually get something from a
> .so/.dll file.

But is this a generic mechanism that works for /any/ .dll file, or does 
there have to be dedicated support for each of the 60 built-in modules?

I'm talking about the former.

Then something like a file library can be written in 100% Python, built 
around calls to msvcrt.dll for example.

Since such libraries usually come with the OS, anyone investigating how 
a library works will see only Python, until it gets to the foreign 
functions, which have their own well-documented interface.

You don't just hit a brick wall and be forced to delve into the innards 
of CPython, which should be concerning itself with implementing the 
language not providing libraries too.

-- 
Bartc