On 29 November 2016 at 10:51, Wolfgang Maier <wolfgang.maier@biologie.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
On 29.11.2016 10:39, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 November 2016 at 22:33, Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
Given that, this wouldn't necessarily need to be an executable file. The finder could locate a "foo.missing" file and raise ModuleNotFoundError with the contents of the file as the message. No need to allow/require any Python code at all, and no risk of polluting sys.modules.
I like this idea. Would it completely satisfy the original use case for the proposal? (Or, to put it another way, is there any specific need for arbitrary code execution in the missing.py file?)
The only thing that I could think of so far would be cross-platform .missing.py files that query the system (e.g. using the platform module) to generate adequate messages for the specific platform or distro. E.g., correctly recommend to use dnf install or yum install or apt install, etc.
Yeah. I'd like to see a genuine example of how that would be used in practice, otherwise I'd be inclined to suggest YAGNI. (Particularly given that this PEP is simply a standardised means of vendor customisation - for special cases, vendors obviously still have the capability to patch or override standard behaviour in any way they like). Paul