Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: On Sep 09, 2016, at 08:30 PM, Terry J. Reedy wrote:
>I think we should definitely fall back to using the .py file. A cache is an >implementation convenience, not a language feature. +1. If the cache is corrupt, it should be ignored and recreated. There are of course situations where that may not be possible though, e.g. if the .pyc is on a read-only file system or the user doesn't have permission to write the .pyc. Still in those cases, if the .py is okay, but the .pyc is not, we should do a source import. I believe we already don't fall over if the .pyc isn't writable, so let's keep that. Although I don't think it's worth it, we could add some extra knobs to warn about this case, or to be strict about not allowing source imports. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28007> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
