[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Eric Snow added the comment: We're dropping PyInterpreterState.modules (#28411). -- resolution: -> wont fix stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed superseder: -> Eliminate PyInterpreterState.modules. ___ Python tracker

[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Eric Snow added the comment: issue17953 addressed part of this. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12633 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Eric Snow added the comment: One proposal would lead to the sys module growing descriptors: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-January/019075.html In that case, sys.modules could update the underlying interp-modules. -- ___ Python

[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com added the comment: The original motivator: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-July/112497.html -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12633

[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com added the comment: also, issue 14615 is related to making sys.modules authoritative. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12633 ___

[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: The note’s spirit is good, but I think something more concise would do. Side note: Please don’t mix up unrelated cosmetic changes in your diffs. -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker

[issue12633] sys.modules doc entry should reflect restrictions

Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com added the comment: Would an implementation detail note be inappropriate here? I only ask because it looks like the imp module's use of interp-modules is implementation specific. Here's a patch for Doc/library/sys.rst that adds the note. --