Description

ncoghlan

opened on Nov 22, 2007

Issue body actions

BPO	1487
Nosy	@gvanrossum, @ncoghlan
Files	pep_366_v2.diff

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/ncoghlan'
closed_at = <Date 2007-12-03.12:58:01.583>
created_at = <Date 2007-11-22.14:22:16.462>
labels = ['interpreter-core', 'type-feature', 'library']
title = 'PEP 366 implementation'
updated_at = <Date 2007-12-03.12:58:01.582>
user = 'https://github.com/ncoghlan'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2007-12-03.12:58:01.582>
actor = 'ncoghlan'
assignee = 'ncoghlan'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2007-12-03.12:58:01.583>
closer = 'ncoghlan'
components = ['Interpreter Core', 'Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2007-11-22.14:22:16.462>
creator = 'ncoghlan'
dependencies = []
files = ['8852']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 1487
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['57761', '58003', '58080', '58087', '58098', '58120']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['gvanrossum', 'ncoghlan']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'accepted'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue1487'
versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 3.0']

Activity

1. ncoghlan commented on Nov 22, 2007

   

   ncoghlan

   on Nov 22, 2007

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Patch to implement PEP-366.

   Note that it doesn't implement precisely the semantics described in the
   version of the PEP posted in July, as some of those ideas didn't prove
   feasible due to the fact that imp.new_module can't tell the difference
   between normal modules and packages.

   An updated version of the PEP will be posted shortly to correct those
   problems.
2. ncoghlan

   added

   interpreter-core(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)

   stdlibStandard Library Python modules in the Lib/ directoryStandard Library Python modules in the Lib/ directory

   type-featureA feature request or enhancementA feature request or enhancement

   on Nov 22, 2007
3. gvanrossum

   self-assigned this

   on Nov 30, 2007
4. gvanrossum commented on Nov 30, 2007

   

   gvanrossum

   on Nov 30, 2007

   Member

   More actions

   I think the implementation is fine too (others will have to check it
   more carefully) but I noticed that the promised functionality of -m
   doesn't work yet: I created a file Lib/test/foo.py whose sole contents
   was "from . import test_support". Then I tried to import this using
   -m:

   $ ./python.exe -m test.foo
   Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "/Users/guido/p/Lib/runpy.py", line 104, in _run_module_as_main
      "__main__", fname, loader)
    File "/Users/guido/p/Lib/runpy.py", line 34, in _run_code
      exec code in run_globals
    File "/Users/guido/p/Lib/test/foo.py", line 1, in <module>
      from . import test_support
   ValueError: Attempted relative import in non-package
   $

   What's missing here?
5. gvanrossum

   assigned

   ncoghlan

   and unassigned

   gvanrossum

   on Nov 30, 2007
6. ncoghlan commented on Dec 2, 2007

   

   ncoghlan

   on Dec 2, 2007

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   I forgot to update the special _run_module_as_main variant when I
   modified run_module. I'll modify the patch to fix that and to test '-m'
   explicitly in test_cmd_line_script.
7. ncoghlan commented on Dec 2, 2007

   

   ncoghlan

   on Dec 2, 2007

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Posted v2 of the patch, which fixes the problem Guido noted, and
   improved the tests to make sure __package__ is being set correctly.
   There's also now an explicit test for using -m on a module inside a
   package (which proved harder to write than I expected - it isn't easy to
   fiddle with sys.path when the subprocess is running python with the -E
   flag!).
8. gvanrossum commented on Dec 2, 2007

   

   gvanrossum

   on Dec 2, 2007

   Member

   More actions

   Great, now check it in!

   On Dec 2, 2007 6:01 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote:

   Nick Coghlan added the comment:

   Posted v2 of the patch, which fixes the problem Guido noted, and
   improved the tests to make sure __package__ is being set correctly.
   There's also now an explicit test for using -m on a module inside a
   package (which proved harder to write than I expected - it isn't easy to
   fiddle with sys.path when the subprocess is running python with the -E
   flag!).

   Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file8852/pep_366_v2.diff

   ---

   Tracker <[email protected]>
   <http://bugs.python.org/issue1487\>

   ---
9. ncoghlan commented on Dec 3, 2007

   

   ncoghlan

   on Dec 3, 2007

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Checked in as rev 59288.
10. ncoghlan

    closed this as completedon Dec 3, 2007
11. ezio-melotti

    transferred this issue fromon Apr 10, 2022

Issue actions