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

Reply via email to