Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This looks good. Please make the appropriate changes to the PEP and to
> PEP 0 to mark it as accepted.
I should get to that in the next day or two. Thanks.
> I think the implementation is fine too (others will have to check it
> more carefully) but I noticed that the pro
This looks good. Please make the appropriate changes to the PEP and to
PEP 0 to mark it as accepted.
I think the implementation is fine too (others will have to check it
more carefully) but I noticed that the promised functionality of -m
doesn't work yet: I created a file Lib/test/foo.py whose sol
I've updated PEP 366 with a proposed implementation, as well as a few
changes to the proposed semantics to make the implementation feasible
(the old proposal called for imp.new_module to calculate a value when it
didn't have access to all of the relevant information).
The updated text is below,
