[Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory
Benjamin Peterson
benjamin at python.org
Sat Oct 10 03:14:48 CEST 2009
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Sat Oct 10 03:14:48 CEST 2009
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
2009/10/9 Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de>: > Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> I think we should make a semi-private (public to the stdlib) module >> like _sys or _implementation part of the Python VM API. Then, instead >> of stuffing everything into sys, we can provide this information in >> modules where it belongs. > > > That's an interesting counter proposal. Your idea requires an additional > import that I try to avoid. Looking at memory and performance, an > additional module that is imported anyway isn't better. In my humble > opinion the implementation information belongs into the sys module > anyway. A new module just for the user site suffix seems unnecessary. But we want to hide that this is an implementation detail from the user. Having a new module just for this attribute might seem like overkill, but I hope that we could use it for more things in the future. Besides, if _sys is a builtin module, importing it will not add much overhead. I forgot to ask before: Does this deprecate platform.python_implementation()? -- Regards, Benjamin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list