On 11 Aug 2013 09:02, "Stefan Behnel" <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > > Stefan Behnel, 11.08.2013 14:53: > > Stefan Behnel, 11.08.2013 14:48: > >> Antoine Pitrou, 11.08.2013 14:32: > >>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:16:10 +0200 Stefan Behnel wrote: > >>>>> We > >>>>> just need to devise a convenience API for that (perhaps by allowing to > >>>>> create both the subclass *and* instantiate it in a single call). > >>>> > >>>> Right. This conflicts somewhat with the simplified module creation. If the > >>>> module loader passed the readily instantiated module instance into the > >>>> module init function, then module subtypes don't fit into this scheme anymore. > >>>> > >>>> One more reason why modules shouldn't be special. Essentially, we need an > >>>> m_new() and m_init() for them. And the lifetime of the module type would > >>>> have to be linked to the (sub-)interpreter, whereas the lifetime of the > >>>> module instance would be determined by whoever uses the module and/or > >>>> decides to unload/reload it. > >>> > >>> It may be simpler if the only strong reference to the module type is in > >>> the module instance itself. Successive module initializations would get > >>> different types, but that shouldn't be a problem in practice. > >> > >> Agreed. Then the module instance would just be the only instance of a new > >> type that gets created each time the module initialised. Even if module > >> subtypes were to become common place once they are generally supported > >> (because they're the easiest way to store per-module state efficiently), > >> module reinitialisation should be rare enough to just buy them with a new > >> type for each. The size of the complete module state+dict will almost > >> always outweigh the size of the one additional type by factors. > > > > BTW, this already suggests a simple module initialisation interface. The > > extension module would expose a function that returns a module type, and > > the loader/importer would then simply instantiate that. Nothing else is needed. > > Actually, strike the word "module type" and replace it with "type". Is > there really a reason why Python needs a module type at all? I mean, you > can stick arbitrary objects in sys.modules, so why not allow arbitrary > types to be returned by the module creation function?
That's exactly what I have in mind, but the way extension module imports currently work means we can't easily do it just yet. Fortunately, importlib means we now have some hope of fixing that :) Cheers, Nick. > > Stefan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.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
