On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > Whoa. This thread already exploded. I'm picking this message to > respond to because it reflects my own view after reading the PEP. > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote: >> 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. > > 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).
I like this option as well, but why not just name the directory .pyc instead of __pyr__ or .pyr? That way people probably won't even have to reconfigure their tools to ignore it :) -bob _______________________________________________ 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