Re: PEP 420 issue: extend_path

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Barry Warsaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 09, 2012, at 08:19 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
>>I modified the PEP to specify these as:
>>
>>1. (loader, None)
>>2. (None, <sequence of strings>)
>>3. (None, None)
>
> wfm.

I'd prefer to keep a consistent constraint of "iterable of path
entries" for the second value, and allow people to return a non-empty
iterable when they're returning a loader (since it will be ignored
anyway). See my proposed revision to PathFinder.find_module in my
other reply.

I'm definitely *much* happier with the 2-tuple return format over the
introspection based API, though :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia