Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
Le Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:45:56 +0100, Baptiste Carvello a écrit :
bytecode-only in a zip is used by py2exe, cx_freeze and the like, for
space reasons. Disabling it would probably hurt them.
Source code compresses quite well. I'm not sure it would make much of a
Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to
manually edit
[snip]
I call the new format RSON (for Readable Serial Object Notation),
and it is designed to be a superset of JSON.
Quick question: if JSON is too hard to manually edit, how can RSON be
any easier when it
Brett Cannon wrote:
So there are a total of five to six depending on the OS (actually, VMS
goes up to eight!) before a search path is considered not to contain a
module.
The windows list is actually going to be slightly different (dir, pyd,
py, pyw, py[co]). It looks for .pyd files rather than
Le Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:09:09 +0100,
Baptiste Carvello baptiste...@free.fr a écrit :
I did a quick check on the stdlib: a zip with .py and .pyc is about
80% bigger than one with .pyc only. If you use only the bytecode,
this can be seen as waisted space. On the other hand, if you ever
need to
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Daniel Fetchinson fetchin...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Quick question: if JSON is too hard to manually edit, how can RSON be
any easier when it is a *superset* of JSON?
Well, Python is essentially a superset of JSON, with string escape handling
being ever so
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Can't it look for a .py file in the source directory first (1st stat)?
When it's there check for the .pyc in the cache directory (2nd stat,
magic number encoded in filename), if it's not check for .pyc in the
source directory (2nd stat + read for magic
Hey folks --
Can someone point me to some information on what's going on with PEP
381 (PyPI mirroring)? There's a bunch of XXX'd material, and it
doesn't appear that pypi.python.org implements the statistics or
providing parts.
I'd be willing -- happy, actually -- to fill in the missing pieces,
On 3/1/2010 2:45 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
Hey folks --
Can someone point me to some information on what's going on with PEP
381 (PyPI mirroring)? There's a bunch of XXX'd material, and it
doesn't appear that pypi.python.org implements the statistics or
providing parts.
I'd be willing --
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 08:30, Ron Adam r...@ronadam.com wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Can't it look for a .py file in the source directory first (1st stat)?
When it's there check for the .pyc in the cache directory (2nd stat,
magic number encoded in filename), if it's
Any people who have commit privileges not subscribed to python-committers?
We have gained some new people recently so I just want to make sure everyone
is subscribed to the list.
Also, anyone have an email address for Hirokazu Yamamoto? His mailbox is
full so Mailman unsubscribed him.
-Brett
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote:
Hey folks --
Can someone point me to some information on what's going on with PEP
381 (PyPI mirroring)? There's a bunch of XXX'd material, and it
doesn't appear that pypi.python.org implements the statistics or
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Opinions?
Regards,
Martin
Ron Adam wrote:
What if ... a bytecode-only mode is triggered by __main__ loading from
a bytecode file, otherwise the .py files are needed and are checked to
make sure the bytecode files are current.
That would preclude having a bytecode-only library that
could be used by a sourceful
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop
On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
Hey packaging guys,
We recently committed a change to Unladen Swallow [1] that moves all
the JIT infrastructure into a Python extension module. The theory [2]
behind this patch was that this would make it easier for downstream
packagers to ship a JIT-less Python package, with the JIT compiler
On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
File extensions exist for a reason, even if you find that kooky and
have strong ideas about the psychology of text editors.
Having some binary files named foobar.py would certainly annoy a lot
of people, including me.
I completely agree.
On Feb 28, 2010, at 02:51 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
A solution might be to look for the presence of the
cache directory, and only look for a .pyc in the source
directory if there is no cache directory. Testing for
the cache directory would only have to be done once
per package and the result
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 13:40, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Thomas Heller thel...@ctypes.org wrote:
See issue 887237:
http://bugs.python.org/issue887237
Thanks for the link Thomas. Since there is already interest in adding
arithmetic to ctypes, perhaps that is an option. One question that raises
in my mind, though,
Martin v. Löwis:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Is there any reason for this?
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 15:35 -0800, Collin Winter wrote:
Hey packaging guys,
We recently committed a change to Unladen Swallow [1] that moves all
the JIT infrastructure into a Python extension module. The theory [2]
behind this patch was that this would make it easier for downstream
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Is there any reason for this? I can understand dropping Windows 9x
due to the lack of Unicode support but is there anything missing from
23 matches
Mail list logo
