[Python-Dev] Objections to PEP 264?

Guido van Rossum guido@python.org
Sun, 19 Aug 2001 01:30:11 -0400

> Tim's latest change to __future__.py has toasted the build process. Python
> itself builds fine, then is run to build the extensions.
> site imports distutils
> distutils imports re
> re imports sre
> sre imports copy_reg
> copy_reg imports types
> types imports __future__
> __future__ imports new, uh oh, new doesn't yet exist...
> python then tries to keep going but with distutils non-functional,
> it doesn't stand a chance.
> If the new module is now considered mainstream, maybe it could be built
> statically?

Good catch!  (This uncovered some problems in my setup -- I hadn't
picked up the latest versions of a few modules. :-( )

I solved it a little differently, by adding hackery to __future__ that
avoids the dependency.  But maybe you're right and it should be built
statically (it's in the main DLL on Windows).

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)