Re: PEP 420 issue: extend_path

On 05/09/2012 07:46 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On May 09, 2012, at 06:19 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>> Eric's counter-proposal is to handle the 3 scenarios as:
>>>
>>> 1. (<loader>, <don't care>)
>>> 2. (None, [<path entries>])
>>> 3. (None, [])

I modified the PEP to specify these as:

1. (loader, None)
2. (None, <sequence of strings>)
3. (None, None)

I'm willing to change this, but this is the direction I'm leaning.

The code still reflects what Nick wrote above. If the PEP version
sticks, I'll update the code.

Eric.