[Python-Dev] PEP 578: Python Runtime Audit Hooks
steve.dower at python.org
Sat Mar 30 12:13:30 EDT 2019
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
More information about the Python-Dev