Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> added the comment: Option 2 sounds best. I am also not against adding __spec__ but I think we should support the idiom regardless, and I don’t consider this a bug in the typing module — at best there’s a slight improvement.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:50 AM Nick Coghlan <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: > > Closing this without any changes contradicts the answer we gave Ronald on > #35791 that it's expected behaviour for importlib.find_spec() to throw an > exception for already loaded modules without a __spec__ attribute. > > So if this stays closed, then we should reopen #35791, and treat it as a > feature request to either: > > 1. add a "ignore_module_cache" option to bypass sys.modules; or > 2. revert to searching for the original spec in cases where the > sys.modules entry has no __spec__ attribute (which has the virtue of just > working for cases of the "replace yourself in sys.modules" idiom) > > That said, the typing pseudo submodules *can* populate their __spec__ with > useful information by copying most of their attributes from > `typing.__spec__`, but setting their __spec__.loader attribute to one that > throws an ImportError with a message saying to import `typing` instead of > attempting to reload the submodule directly. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue35806> > _______________________________________ > -- --Guido (mobile) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35806> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
