Is it obvious whether pyrex extensions are in use?

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Westby wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If a user submits a bug report it may be useful to know whether they are
> using pyrex extensions or not. I guess this is obvious if a traceback
> contains the extension, but is it obvious otherwise? Should it be made
> more prominent?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James
> 

All of my current pyrex implementations use a different name for the
function. So if there is an exception it will be "module_c.function_c"
rather than "module.function". Which is one of the reasons to have them
named something different rather than doing just "import
module.function" which Alexander was working on.

I've thought about having a 'trace.mutter("Could not load pyrex module
X")' in the try/except ImportError code. But I didn't think it was a big
deal yet.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGuOK2JdeBCYSNAAMRAicjAJ9CnCvkzV2hH2ryXyR7VRRij8Rj9wCgjWwH
T3D7SRQwKU/MFDueLuKKdHk=
=PT6a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----