[Python-Dev] If you shadow a module in the standard library that IDLE depends on, bad things happen

Matthias Bussonnier bussonniermatthias at gmail.com
Thu Oct 29 15:07:44 EDT 2015

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:46, Laura Creighton <lac at openend.se> wrote:
> In a message of Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:27:59 +0000, Paul Moore writes:
>> The idle issues seem to me to demonstrate that shadowing the stdlib is
>> a bad idea. Of course, consenting adults, and if you override you're
>> responsible for correctly replacing the functionality, and all that,
>> but honestly, I don't think it needs to be *easy* to shadow the stdlib
>> - there's nothing wrong with it being an "advanced" technique that
>> people have to understand in order to use.
> I am actually sick of the 'consenting adults' argument.
> I am dealing with '11 year old children trying to write their
> first, third and tenth python programs'.  For the life of me
> I cannot see how convenience for the sort of person who has a 
> legitimate reason to shadow the syslib should get a higher priority
> over these mites who are doing their damndest to write python
> despite natural language barriers  and the fact that their peers
> and parents think they are nuts to want to do so.
> (a grumpy comment from a teacher at a Swedish 'coding for
> kids' club.  Disregard if too grumpy.)

+1 on **warning**, warning still allow people to shadow stdlib, and for people who have
 **legitimate** reasons to shadow, we can always find a solution to to tag 
a module as “yes I know I am shadowing, I am doing that on purpose”. 

StdlibShadowWarning and warning filter ?

Also a warning would be useful for people to discover that some Stdlib modules exist, 
and maybe explore them. 


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list