> -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, 11 August, 2013 17:14 > > We actually have a proposal on import-sig to allow module specific import > path manipulation (including the ability to say "don't import this module > from this directory, even though it looks like it is here"). I'd favour that > mechanism over a new "not importable" file extension.
I don't believe this mechanism would suffice. My previous example was over-simplified to the general problem, which is that any script could potentially be imported as a module of the same name. So if I were to launch easy_install.py, it would set sys.path[0] to Scripts\ and if it were then to import cython (which it does), it would import Scripts/cython.py as cython, unless there were some way to globally declare all installed scripts somewhere so they're excluded from import. > If that doesn't make it into 3.4, the proposed zipapp extensions would also > serve a similar purpose, with some straightforward sys.path manipulation in > __main__.py (as PJE pointed out). Regardless what solution might be made available for Python 3.4, I'd prefer to work toward a solution that leverages pylauncher under older Pythons. After all, one of the huge benefits of pylauncher is that it supports multiple Pythons. If zipapp is the preferred mechanism for that, then so be it. I do agree that we should devise a best approach within the context of Python 3.4, and consider the backward-compatibility implications separately. My feeling is that zipapp is somewhat too convoluted in that it alters the sys.path, but then has to alter it back to simulate not being a zipapp. It's also a file within a file, meaning it can't be readily edited with a text editor, but requires a routine even just to inspect it. I guess that's more transparent than an executable, though. This approach also means that the script generation is not congruent with that on Unix systems. Using a zipapp means that the whole script generation needs to be special-cased for Windows. One of great benefits of using a simple script was that the code becomes largely unified (only requiring appending of an extension when on Windows). That is, unless zipapps can be made executable on Unix as well. Given these obstacles, do you still feel that zipapp is the best approach?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
