On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 20:12, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 15:46, Aahz <a...@pythoncraft.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>> > >>> I am seeing two approaches emerging. One is where pickle contains all > >>> Python code and then uses something like use_extension to make sure > >>> the original Python objects are still reachable at some point. This > >>> has the drawback that you have to use some function to make the > >>> extensions happen and there is some extra object storage. > >>> > >>> The other approach is having pickle contain code known not to > >>> be overridden by anyone, import _pypickle for stuff that may be > >>> overridden, and then import _pickle for whatever is available. This > >>> approach has the perk of using a standard practice for how to pull in > >>> different implementation. But the drawback, thanks to how globals are > >>> bound, is that any code pulled in from _pickle/_pypickle will not be > >>> able to call into other optimized code; it's a take or leave it once > >>> the call chain enters one of those modules as they will always call > >>> the implementations in the module they originate from. > >> > >> To what extent do we care about being able to select Python-only on a > >> per-module basis, particularly in the face of threaded imports? That > is, > >> we could have a sys.python_only attribute that gets checked on import. > >> That's simple and direct, and even allows per-module switching if the > >> application really cares and import doesn't need to worry about threads. > >> > >> Alternatively, sys.python_only could be a set, but that gets ugly about > >> setting from the application. (The module checks to see whether it's > >> listed in sys.python_only.) > >> > >> Maybe we should move this discussion to python-ideas for now to kick > >> around really oddball suggestions? > > > > This is all about testing. If a change is made to some extension code it > > should be mirrored in the Python code and vice-versa. > > Okay, I don't see how that is a response to my suggestion -- I can > imagine that someone might want to test a combination of pure-Python and > binary libraries. >
I don't want to move it because this isn't some idea for a new feature that may or may not be useful; this isn't an "idea", it's needed. -Brett
_______________________________________________ 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
