On Jan 20, 2011, at 08:55 PM, Michael Fladischer wrote: >Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20 20:26: >> On Jan 20, 2011, at 07:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >>> 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? >> >> I think it would make sense, yes. Any Python 2 code that uses importlib >> being >> ported to Python 3 would have to be modified, but I'd bet that'll affect oh, >> roughly zero existing code bases right now, and it probably would have to do >> so anyway. :) > >So we would have importlib in python-importlib and python2.7 and >importlib3 in python3.x?
Okay, sorry, let me clarify since I probably misunderstood the original question. I just chatted with Brett Cannon. There is no backport of Python3's importlib for Python 2, though he says it wouldn't be difficult to do. Such a thing would have to be called importlib3 so as not to conflict with Python 2.7's minimal package. A backport of the Cheeseshop package importlib[1], which provides Python 2.7's minimal package, and is compatible back to Python 2.3, should be called 'importlib' since it's identical to what's in Python 2.7. Hope that helps, -Barry [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/importlib/1.0.2
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
