"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 2013/7/28 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: >> I already read the code and it's a nice piece of engineering. It's not >> exactly what I had in mind or wrote myself. We will test it throughly >> when the first complete implementation is finished. > > All the basic pieces are now in place. I dropped the fifos in favor of > regular files. I kept the file descriptors to avoid repeatedly opening > and closing the temporary files. I'm happy with the way it is now, we > can proceed with testing. > > I did not implement compiling one .py file multiple times for > different Python versions.
Do you plan to do it later? > The main concern for the current CAS is the suitability of pattern > matching. Is it good enough to just match a part of the path to know > which interpreter to use? It should be good enough for most packages, > but I'm not sure what the corner cases / contrived path names could > be. Even if it misses some is not blocking as the code is there. Anyhow, the difference between .py and .pyc is not so great (and I don't speak about .pyo which seems to me a scam), in my experience and if I understood the mechanism of dynamic compilation the overhead is incurred only once. This is why supplying the compiled components in the package seemed to me a very good solution. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
