Message160104
| Author |
brett.cannon |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, brett.cannon, eric.araujo, eric.smith, eric.snow, lemburg, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev |
| Date |
2012年05月06日.19:05:05 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1336331106.6.0.0390815701026.issue14657@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I think it's beyond a hint and says we need to find a solution or else other people will run into similar issues.
And while I'm thinking about it, there is precedent for exposing modules under a different name than they are actually installed as in the system (e.g. os.path is posixpath), so I don't think we need to bend over backwards to mask every detail if the bootstrap solution is not taken (e.g. if we decided to just paper over _frozen_importlib we don't need to iterate over _frozen_importlib.__dict__ and patch up __module__). But I do think that we need to choose some solution to prevent this "forking" of code in the running interpreter. |
|