Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-04 Thread Brett Cannon
On 10/3/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/2/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> This is why I asked for input from people on which would take less time.> Almost all the answers I got was that the the C code was delicate but that > it was workable.  Several people said they

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-03 Thread Neal Norwitz
On 10/2/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is why I asked for input from people on which would take less time. > Almost all the answers I got was that the the C code was delicate but that > it was workable. Several people said they wished for a Python > implementation, but hardly

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 08:21 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, A.M. Kuchling wrote: >On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:27:07PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > > Yes, I'm quite surprised at how much has appeared in pkgutil. The > > "what's new" entry is very terse, and the module documentation itself > > hasn't been updated to mention the new s

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread A.M. Kuchling
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:27:07PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > Yes, I'm quite surprised at how much has appeared in pkgutil. The > "what's new" entry is very terse, and the module documentation itself > hasn't been updated to mention the new stuff. These two things are related, of course; I couldn

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 03:48 PM 10/2/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >On 10/2/06, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >>On 10/2/06, Phillip J. Eby >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>[SNIP] >> > I'm surprised, however, that you think working on this in C is going t

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread Brett Cannon
On 10/2/06, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/2/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:[SNIP]> I'm surprised, however, that you think working on this in C is going to be> *less* time than it would take to simply replace __import__ with a Python > function that reimplements PEP 302..

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread Paul Moore
On 10/2/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just FYI, it's not possible (so far as I know) to implement phase 2 while > maintaining backward compatibility with existing 2.x code. So this work > shouldn't go back to the 2.x trunk without discussion of those issues. While that's a fair

Re: [Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 01:01 PM 10/2/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >In the interest of time I have decided to go ahead and do the PEP 302 >phase 2 work in C. Just FYI, it's not possible (so far as I know) to implement phase 2 while maintaining backward compatibility with existing 2.x code. So this work shouldn'

[Python-Dev] Created branch for PEP 302 phase 2 work (in C)

2006-10-02 Thread Brett Cannon
In the interest of time I have decided to go ahead and do the PEP 302 phase 2 work in C.  I fully expect to tackle rewriting import in Python in my spare time after I finish this work since I will be much more familiar with how the whole import machinery works and it sounds like a fun challenge. Th