Thanks all. I'll address this feedback next week.
Regards, Mario
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 03:01, Barry Warsaw barry@python.org wrote:
Kind of :)
PEP 648 would definitely allow us to deprecate the executable part of pth files. I let my own biases leak in to my response because I would like to find a way to replace the sys.path feature of pth with something much more auditable and discoverable. To me that means deprecating pth files and finding something better, but maybe not.
In any case, this is outside the scope of PEP 648 so just pretend that part wasn’t in my response.
-Barry
On Mar 30, 2021, at 17:00, Pablo Galindo Salgado pablogsal@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Nick,
Please don't, since that would force everyone to start using PEP 648
just to extend sys.path, which would be just as bad as the status quo.
I think Barry is referring to deprecate the execution capabilities of
pth files (https://bugs.python.org/issue33944), not the files themselves.
Cheers, Pablo Galindo Salgado
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 00:34, Nick Coghlan ncoghlan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021, 3:15 am Barry Warsaw, barry@python.org wrote: . We would like to eventually go farther, including deprecation of pth
files entirely, but that is outside the scope of this PEP.
Please don't, since that would force everyone to start using PEP 648
just to extend sys.path, which would be just as bad as the status quo.
Cheers, Nick.
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MSOV7NKD...
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/