On 29 November 2016 at 10:51, Wolfgang Maier <wolfgang.ma...@biologie.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > On 29.11.2016 10:39, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On 28 November 2016 at 22:33, Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> wrote: >>> >>> Given that, this wouldn't necessarily need to be an executable file. The >>> finder could locate a "foo.missing" file and raise ModuleNotFoundError >>> with >>> the contents of the file as the message. No need to allow/require any >>> Python >>> code at all, and no risk of polluting sys.modules. >> >> >> I like this idea. Would it completely satisfy the original use case >> for the proposal? (Or, to put it another way, is there any specific >> need for arbitrary code execution in the missing.py file?) >> > > The only thing that I could think of so far would be cross-platform > .missing.py files that query the system (e.g. using the platform module) to > generate adequate messages for the specific platform or distro. E.g., > correctly recommend to use dnf install or yum install or apt install, etc.
Yeah. I'd like to see a genuine example of how that would be used in practice, otherwise I'd be inclined to suggest YAGNI. (Particularly given that this PEP is simply a standardised means of vendor customisation - for special cases, vendors obviously still have the capability to patch or override standard behaviour in any way they like). Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/