On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Simon Cross
<hodgestar+python...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know whether I in favour of using a single pyr folder or not
but if a single folder is used I'd definitely prefer the folder to be
called __pyr__ rather than .pyr.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Exactly what I would prefer. I worry that having many small
directories is a fairly poor use of the filesystem. A quick scan of
/usr/local/lib/python3.2 on my Linux box reveals 1163 .py files but
only 57 directories).
Just to be clear: what should go in the __pyr__ folder? I can see two
possibilities:
1) All files go directly into __pyr__, a flat directory tree.
foo.py
bar.py
__pyr__/
foo.py.c.3160
bar.py.c.3160
2) Each source file gets its own subdirectory of __pyr__.
foo.py
bar.py
__pyr__/
foo.py/
c.3160
bar.py/
c.3160
2 makes it easier to clear the cache for a particular source file--just
delete its matching directory. The downside is that we're back to lots
of small directories. And it's not that onerous to do a "rm
__pyr__/foo.py.*". So I suspect you prefer option 1.
The proposal gets a +1 from me,
/larry/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
