Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

bpo-30535: Explicitly note that sys.meta_path is not empty #13300

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

bpo-30535: Explicitly note that sys.meta_path is not empty #13300

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Windsooon
Copy link
Contributor

@Windsooon Windsooon commented May 14, 2019 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

Explicitly note that sys.meta_path is not empty

https://bugs.python.org/issue30535

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels May 14, 2019
@csabella csabella requested a review from brettcannon May 14, 2019 09:59
jdemeyer
jdemeyer requested changes May 16, 2019
View reviewed changes
Doc/library/sys.rst Outdated
@@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ always available.

A list of :term:`meta path finder` objects that have their
:meth:`~importlib.abc.MetaPathFinder.find_spec` methods called to see if one
of the objects can find the module to be imported. The
of the objects can find the module to be imported. by default, holds entries
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not grammatically correct: a sentence should start with a capital letter and contain a verb.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you, how about
"By default, it holds entries to handle the standard kinds of modules (.py files, extension modules...)."

brettcannon
brettcannon requested changes May 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@brettcannon brettcannon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Technically there aren't different kinds of modules, just different ways of storing code. I have suggested a tweak to the wording.

Doc/library/sys.rst
@@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ always available.

A list of :term:`meta path finder` objects that have their
:meth:`~importlib.abc.MetaPathFinder.find_spec` methods called to see if one
of the objects can find the module to be imported. The
of the objects can find the module to be imported. By default, it holds entries
to handle the standard kinds of modules (.py files, extension modules...). The
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
to handle the standard kinds of modules (.py files, extension modules...). The
that implement Python's default import semantics. The

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@brettcannon Do you think we should add examples after that. Like:

that implement Python's default import semantics. (BuiltinImporter, FrozenImporter, and PathFinder)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, as that's too easy of a thing to forget to update. Plus there's no guarantee that every interpreter will set up sys.meta_path the same.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@csabella csabella requested a review from brettcannon November 20, 2019 01:47
brettcannon
brettcannon requested changes Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@brettcannon brettcannon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think the docs should get too specific as interpreters can choose what to put into sys.meta_path.

@csabella
Copy link
Contributor

@Windsooon, please take a look at the review comments. Thanks!

@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member

Changes were requested by a core dev over two years ago, but have not been made. I am therefore closing this PR.

@Windsooon, if you're still interested in working on this, feel free to open a new PR. Alternatively, ping me, and I'll happily reopen this PR. Thanks! 🙂

@iritkatriel iritkatriel reopened this Jun 21, 2022
@iritkatriel
Copy link
Member

I tried to updated this PR with Brett's comment but I don't think I can. I will create a new PR.

@iritkatriel iritkatriel mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2022
Merged
@masklinn masklinn mannequin mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@brettcannon brettcannon brettcannon requested changes

@jdemeyer jdemeyer jdemeyer approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting changes docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@Windsooon @bedevere-bot @csabella @AlexWaygood @iritkatriel @brettcannon @jdemeyer @the-knights-who-say-ni