Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:32 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]>wrote:

> On 02.05.2012 12:23, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2012 3:17 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>
>>> About the only question I have is: Is everyone okay with the changes to
>>>> the finders, described in the PEP?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks good to me. It's a somewhat surprising change, but I can see no
>>> flaw in it.
>>>
>>
>> Surprising in that any change to find_module is needed, or surprising
>> that it now returns one of {None, loader, str}?
>>
>>
> Both, actually. I had expected that new API (i.e. a new method of some
> kind) would be necessary, so it has elegance that this is not required.
> OTOH, explicit type checking is despised in the OO world, and varying
> result types are disliked by Guido van Rossum (not sure whether this
> reservation applies to this case as well, or only to cases where the
> return type depends on the parameter types).
>

You actually don't need to explicitly type-check and instead can rely on
duck typing::

  if loader is None: continue
  elif hasattr(loader, 'load_module'): return loader
  else:
     namespace.append(loader)
     continue

_______________________________________________
Import-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/import-sig