On Jan 30, 4:31 am, Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know Python internals enough to state of believe with any > authority wither, let's say, stomping __module__ and hacking > sys.modules would be enough to *truly* do it correctly in a proper way > such that it is entirely transparent. This is why I care about whether > it truly changes the real identity of the class; it's not about > satisfying my particular list of examples (because they *were* just > examples).
Well, all I will say is that many people on this list, myself included, do know Python internals, and we use the method we've been suggesting here, without problems. I think you're slipping to a level of paranoia that's more harmful that helpful now. The ironic thing is, breaking the one-to-one module-to-file relationship is more likely to have "unintended consequences", by a very large margin. Python has always been one-to-one module-to-file (excepting modules built into the interpretter), and many codes and tools have come to depend on it. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list