On 29 Aug 2008 15:21:53 GMT, Steven D'Aprano <steve@remove-this-cybersource.com .auwrote:
This seems particularly pointless. If __file__ were changed to make it
easier to handle by making the value have a more consistent meaning, then
it might be useful. It sounds like the change is just making the failure
case more obscure and less likely to be noticed during testing, though.
Jean-Paul
>On the python-dev mailing list, a question has be raised about a change
>to module.__file__ in Python 3.
>
>http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list.../674923#674923
>
>In Python 2.x, m.__file__ is the name of the file that the module was
>imported from. That file might end with .py, .pyc, .pyo, or even more
>exotic extensions if Python's import mechanism has been customized.
>
>For reasons explained here:
>http://bugs.python.org/issue1762972
>
>Python 3.0 will introduce a patch that makes m.__file__ always specify
>the source file (.py) if it exists, and only if that file doesn't exist
>will it specify the actual file used (.pyc or .pyo).
>to module.__file__ in Python 3.
>
>http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list.../674923#674923
>
>In Python 2.x, m.__file__ is the name of the file that the module was
>imported from. That file might end with .py, .pyc, .pyo, or even more
>exotic extensions if Python's import mechanism has been customized.
>
>For reasons explained here:
>http://bugs.python.org/issue1762972
>
>Python 3.0 will introduce a patch that makes m.__file__ always specify
>the source file (.py) if it exists, and only if that file doesn't exist
>will it specify the actual file used (.pyc or .pyo).
easier to handle by making the value have a more consistent meaning, then
it might be useful. It sounds like the change is just making the failure
case more obscure and less likely to be noticed during testing, though.
Jean-Paul