Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > Rather than being arbitrary, the motivation here is to limit amount > of the import state that is specific to CPython.
What is gained by doing that? > Finally, modules (the biggie) is accessible as sys.modules. > importlib uses sys.modules. The C import implementation used > interp->modules directly. [1] Most (all) of that usage is going > away. Again, _if_ that is the case, why keep it around? I think each of them should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Feel free to submit a patch that eliminates ->modules. People may find reasons not to do so when they see an actual patch. I suggest to close this issue, and encourage people who have the desire to eliminate certain state as individual patches. > Just to be clear, I do _not_ want to make changes willy-nilly. (I've > even grown more conservative in what discussion topics I bring up.) > This issue has no urgency attached to it, in my mind. It is the > result of an actionable conversation that I didn't want to lose track > of. Then I think it doesn't belong in this bug tracker. I have five or ten "grand plans" of things that should change in Python at some point; putting them into a bug tracker is only confusing people, though, since no implementation might be coming forward (for some of the things, I have been pondering for the last eight years). For many of the things, I ended up writing PEPs since they were significant changes. So if this is one of your grand plans, feel free to mention it on python-dev. Putting it on the bug tracker asks for specific action. If I had to act on this issue, I'd outright reject it. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14615> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
