[Python-ideas] Module aliases and/or "real names"
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Wed Jan 5 05:47:01 CET 2011
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>> Hmm... I starred this and am finally dug out enough to comment.
>> Would it be sufficient if the __module__ attribute of classes and
>> functions got set to the "canonical" name rather than the "physical"
>> You can currently get a crude version of this by simply assigning to
>> __name__ at the top of the module.
>> That sounds like it would be too confusing, however, so perhaps we
>> could make it so that, when the __module__ attribute is initialized,
>> it first looks for __canonical__ and then for __name__?
>> This may still be too crude though -- I looked at the one example I
>> could think of where this might be useful, the unittest package, and
>> realized that it would set __module__ to 'unittest' even for classes
>> that are not actually re-exported via the unittest namespace.
>> So maybe it would be better in that case to just patch the __module__
>> attribute of all the public classes in unittest/__import__.py?
> I did think about that - for classes, it would probably be sufficient,
> but for functions the fact that we'd be breaking the identity that
> "f.__globals__ is sys.modules[f.__module__]" scares me.
Really? Why? Who would ever depend on that? (You also probably meant
sys.modules[...].__dict__ -- f.__globals__ is a dict, not a module
Note that for classes you'd have the same issue, since each method
references the module globals in its f.__globals__.
> Then again,
> the fact that "f.__module__ != f.__globals__['__name__']" would
> provide exactly the indicator of "two names" that I am talking about
> (at least where functions are concerned) - things like pydoc and the
> inspect module could definitely be updated to check both module names.
I think the more important question to answer first would be what
you'd want pydoc and inspect to do.
> On the gripping hand, there would still be problems with things like
> methods and nested classes and functions (unless tools were provided
> to recurse down through a class to update the subcomponents as well as
> the class itself).
Well, method references (even unbound) are not picklable anyway.
> So perhaps the granularity on my initial suggestion wasn't fine enough
> - if the "__canonical__" idea was extended to all objects with a
> __module__ attribute, then objects could either be relocated at
> creation time (by setting __canonical__ in the module globals), or
> after the fact by assigning to the __canonical__ attribute on the
BTW, I think we need to come up with a better word than __canonical__.
In general I don't like using adjectives as attribute names.
>> OTOH for things named __main__, setting __canonical__ (automatically,
>> by -m or whatever other mechanism starts execution, like "python
>> <filename>" might actually work.
> Yes, although a related modification is needed in those cases (to
> actual insert the module being executed into sys.modules under its
> module name as well as under __main__).
That's the easy part.
The hard part is to make the "real name" (i.e. not __main__) the name
used by the classes and functions it defines, without breaking the "if
__name__ == '__main__': main()" idiom...
>> On the third hand, maybe you've finally hit upon a reason why the "if
>> __name__ == '__main__': main()" idiom is bad...
> I can't take credit for that particular observation - I've certainly
> heard others complain about that in the context of pickling objects
> over the years. It is one of the main things that got me thinking
> along these lines in the first place.
Why didn't you say so in the first place? :-)
I think it's easier to come up with a solution for just this case; the
issue with e.g. unittest doesn't seem quite as hard (after all,
"unittest.case" will always exist).
We could just call it __real_name__ and use that in preference over
__name__ for all __module__ attributes whenever it's set. (Or we could
always set both...)
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
More information about the Python-ideas