Author ncoghlan
Recipients Arfrever, berker.peksag, brett.cannon, eric.snow, larry, ncoghlan
Date 2013-11-11.23:49:41
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CADiSq7cOYfq7C98C5q4-Rcsoj3DNL=g4F0GE9-GTp35Av19Z6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1384213011.76.0.445889098938.issue18864@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 12 Nov 2013 09:36, "Eric Snow" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> As we found out (and you expounded) there are a variety of
reload/load-into cases that we could address more explicitly.  Perhaps
there's a better API that could address those needs more broadly, or maybe
they're just not worth addressing specifically.  Exploring all this is
something that can wait, IMHO.

Yes, that's an option, too, and probably a good one. To go down that path,
we would drop the various "target" parameters and say loaders that need to
check for the reloading case should continue to provide load_module without
exec_module (at least for 3.4). runpy would use the rule that it supports
anything that exposes exec_module without create_module.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-11-11 23:49:42ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, brett.cannon, larry, Arfrever, eric.snow, berker.peksag
2013-11-11 23:49:41ncoghlanlinkissue18864 messages
2013-11-11 23:49:41ncoghlancreate