[Python-Dev] PEP 578: Python Runtime Audit Hooks
steve.dower at python.org
Mon Apr 1 13:42:58 EDT 2019
On 30Mar2019 0913, Steve Dower wrote:
> On 30Mar.2019 0747, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I like this PEP in principle, but the specific "open_for_import" name
>> bothers me a lot, as it implies that "importing" is the only situation
>> where a file will be opened for code execution.
>> If this part of the API were lower down the stack (e.g.
>> "_io.open_for_code_execution") then I think it would make more sense -
>> APIs like tokenize.open(), runpy.run_path(), PyRun_SimpleFile(),
>> shelve, etc, could use that, without having to introduce a dependency
>> on importlib to get access to the functionality.
> It was called "open_for_exec" at one point, though I forget exactly why
> we changed it. But I have no problem with moving it. Something like this?
> PyImport_OpenForImport -> PyIO_OpenForExec
> PyImport_SetOpenForImportHook -> PyIO_SetOpenForExecHook
> importlib.util.open_for_import -> _io.open_for_exec
> Or more in line with Nick's suggestion:
> PyImport_OpenForImport -> PyIO_OpenExecutableCode
> PyImport_SetOpenForImportHook -> PyIO_SetOpenExecutableCodeHook
> importlib.util.open_for_import -> _io.open_executable_code
> I dropped "For", but I don't really care that much about the name. I'd
> be okay dropping either "executable" or "code" as well - I don't really
> have a good sense of which will make people more likely to use this
Looking at what we already have, perhaps putting it under
"PyFile_OpenForExecute" would make the most sense? We don't currently
have any public "PyIO" types or functions.
Bikeshedding now, but as I'm the only one really participating in it, I
think it's allowed :)
More information about the Python-Dev