"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Wed May 9 11:57:59 CEST 2012
On 27.04.2012 09:34, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Barry Warsaw<barry at python.org> wrote:
>> It's somewhat of a corner case, but I think a PEP couldn't hurt. The
>> rationale section would be useful, at least.
Interesting proposal. I have a number of comments:
- namespace vs. dictionary. Barry was using it in the form
sys.implementation.version. I think this is how it should work,
yet the PEP says that sys.implementation is a dictionary, which
means that you would need to write
I think the PEP should be silent on the type of sys.implementation,
in particular, it should not mandate that it be a module (else
"from sys.implementation import url" ought to work)
[Update: it seems this is already reflected in the PEP. I wonder
where the requirement for "a new type" comes from. I think making
it a module should be conforming, even though probably discouraged
for cpython, as it would make people think that they can rely on
it being a module. I wish there was a builtin class
which can be used to create objects which have only attributes
and no methods. Making it a type should also work:
name = "cpython"
version = (3,3,0)
in which case it would an instance of an existing type, namely,
- under-specified attributes: "run-time environment" doesn't mean much
to me - my first guess is that it is the set of environment variables,
i.e. a dictionary identical to os.environ. I assume you mean something
gc_type is supposedly a string, but I cannot guess what possible
values it may have. I also wonder why it's relevant.
More information about the Python-Dev