In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it's a path importer, it could be a cookie, specific to the importer.
> > I think in Steve's case initializing __path__ to ["*db*"] should work.
> >
> > Just
>
> And that's exactly the conclusion I came to when impo
Just wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bernhard Herzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernhard Herzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
if package:
module.__path__ = sys.path
You usually should initialize a package's __path__ to an empty li
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bernhard Herzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bernhard Herzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> if package:
> >> module.__path__ = sys.path
> >
> > You usually should initialize a package's __path_
Bernhard Herzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> if package:
>> module.__path__ = sys.path
>
> You usually should initialize a package's __path__ to an empty list.
Actually, normally it's a list that contains the name of the package
d
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to make things simpler, and (;-) to appeal to a wider audience,
> here is a program that doesn't use database at all (it loads the entire
> standard library into a dict) and still shows the error.
>
> What *I* would
Bernhard Herzog wrote:
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What *I* would like to know is: who is allowing the import of bsddb.os,
thereby somehow causing the code of the os library module to be run a
second time.
I would guess (without actually running the code) that this part is
responsibl
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What *I* would like to know is: who is allowing the import of bsddb.os,
> thereby somehow causing the code of the os library module to be run a
> second time.
I would guess (without actually running the code) that this part is
responsible:
> if
Steve Holden wrote:
Peter Otten wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
This is even stranger: it makes it if I import the module a second time:
[second import seems to succeed]
Maybe you are experiencing some version confusion? What you describe
looks
much like the normal Python 2.3 behaviour (with no impor
Peter Otten wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
This is even stranger: it makes it if I import the module a second time:
[second import seems to succeed]
Maybe you are experiencing some version confusion? What you describe looks
much like the normal Python 2.3 behaviour (with no import hook involved)
wher
Steve Holden wrote:
> This is even stranger: it makes it if I import the module a second time:
[second import seems to succeed]
Maybe you are experiencing some version confusion? What you describe looks
much like the normal Python 2.3 behaviour (with no import hook involved)
whereas you seem to
This is even stranger: it makes it if I import the module a second time:
import dbimp as dbimp
import sys
if __name__ == "__main__":
dbimp.install()
#k = sys.modules.keys()
#k.sort()
#for kk in k:
#print kk
#import bsddb.db
import a.b.c.d
import smtplib
import f
11 matches
Mail list logo
