[Python-Dev] Getting importlib into the standard library for 3.1
brett at python.org
Sat Jan 10 05:37:45 CET 2009
OK, since no one has really said anything, I am going to assume no one
has issues with importlib in terms of me checking it in or choosing a
name for it (I like importlib more than imp so I will probably stick
So I will do some file renaming and reorganization, get the code set
up to be run by regrtest, and then check the code in! I am going to
set PyCon as a hard deadline such that no matter how much more file
churn I have left I will still check it into py3k by then (along with
importlib.import_module() into 2.7).
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> My work rewriting import in pure Python code has reached beta.
> Basically the code is semantically complete and as
> backwards-compatible as I can make it short of widespread testing or
> running on a Windows box. There are still some tweaks here and there I
> want to make and an API to expose, but __import__ works as expected
> when run as the import implementation for all unit tests.
> Knowing how waiting for perfection leads to never finishing, I would
> like to start figuring out what it will take to get the code added to
> the standard library of 3.1 with hopes of getting the bootstrapping
> stuff done so that the C implementation of import can go away in 3.1
> as well. I see basically three things that need to be decided upfront.
> One, does anyone have issues if I check in importlib? We have
> typically said code has to have been selected as best-of-breed by the
> community first, so I realize I am asking for a waiver on this one.
> Two, what should the final name be? I originally went with importlib
> since this code was developed outside of the trunk, but I can see some
> people suggesting using the imp name. That's fine although that does
> lead to the question of what to do with the current imp. It could be
> renamed _imp, but then that means what is currently named _importlib
> would have to be renamed to something else as well. Maybe
> imp._bootstrap? Plus I always viewed imp as the place where really
> low-level, C-based stuff lived. Otherwise importlib can slowly subsume
> the stuff in imp that is still useful.
> Three, there are still some structural changes to the code that I want
> to make. I can hold off on checking in the code until these changes
> are made, but as I said earlier, I know better than to wait forever
> for perfection.
> And because I know people will ask: no, I do not plan to backport all
> the code to 2.7. I want this to be a carrot to people to switch to
> 3.x. But I will backport the import_module function I wrote to 2.7 so
> people do have that oft-requested feature since it is a really simple
> bit of Python code.
More information about the Python-Dev