> It what sense will it not be? Why do you care so much about where the > source code for Monkey is defined? If you actually want to read the > source, you might need to follow the chain from "animal", see that Monkey > is imported from "monkey", and go look at that. But the rest of the time, > why would you care? > > There is a very good reason to care *in practice*: if there is code out > there that assumes that the source code from Monkey is in the file it was > found in. In practice, you might be stuck needing to work around that. > But that's not a good reason to care *in principle*. In principle, the > actual location of the source code should be an implementation detail of > which we care nothing. It's possible that the source for Monkey doesn't
Exactly. I *DON'T* want anything to depend on the physical location on disk. That was exactly what I was after from the beginning; a total separation of location on disk from the location in the module hiearachy. As you say, the location of the source should be an implementation detail. That is exactly what I am after. I'll have a closer look at the suggested practice of modifying __module__. For this particular use case we probably won't end up doing that, but it may come to be useful in the future. -- / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
