Steven Bethard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
But there is another issue with this: the pure Python code will never call
the extension code because the globals will be bound to _pypickle and not
_pickle. So if you have something like::
# _pypickle
def A(): return _B()
def _B(): return -13
# _pickle
def _B(): return 42
# pickle
from _pypickle import *
try: from _pickle import *
except ImportError: pass
If you import pickle and call pickle.A() you will get -13 which is not what
you are after.
Maybe I've missed this and someone else already suggested it, but
couldn't we provide a (probably C-coded) function
``replace_globals(module, globals)`` that would, say, replace the
globals in _pypickle with the globals in pickle? Then you could write
something like::
from _pypickle import *
try:
from _pickle import *
module = __import__('_pickle')
except ImportError:
module = __import__('_pypickle')
replace_globals(module, globals())
Steve
Swapping out module globals seems to be a backwards way to do things to
me. Why not have one set of tests that test the low level APIs
(identical tests whether they are written in C or Python) - and as they
live in their own module are easy to test in isolation. And then a
separate set of tests for the higher level APIs, which can even mock out
the low level APIs they use. There shouldn't be any need for switching
out objects in the scope of the lower level APIs - that seems like a
design smell to me.
Michael
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
