On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:58, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2011, at 05:20 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: > >>This is not relevant to the question about the toolchain that you were >>asking, but I’d like to point out that importlib in 2.7 is only a subset >>of the version in 3.1 (precisely, importlib.import_module only), so >>packaging a full backport of importlib makes sense for 2.7 too. > > Isn't that problematic though? 'import importlib' will give you something > different depending on whether the backported package is installed or not. > That doesn't seem good. ;)
Attention: stupid question coming. Would it make sense to rename upstream module to importlib3 (to recall the fact it's a backport from py3k) and so it would importable also in 2.7 along with the stdlib 'importlib' module? Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimxz0a408vzmah-2b-9qx2hsab6lfdlbxznh...@mail.gmail.com
