At 01:39 PM 8/31/2009 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:59, Brett Cannon<br...@python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27, Antoine Pitrou<solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
>> Brett Cannon <brett <at> python.org> writes:
>>>
>>> I will plan to take this approach then;
>>> http://bugs.python.org/issue6811 will track all of this. Since this is
>>> a 3.2 thing I am not going to rush to implement this.
>>
>> I still don't understand what the point is of this complicated
approach (adding
>> an argument to marshal.load()) compared to the simple and obvious approach
>> (making co_filename mutable).
>
> If we add the argument to marshal.load* we can eventually drop the
> file location string from marshal data entirely by requiring people to
> specify the filename to use when the code object is created. Making
> co_filename mutable simply doesn't allow for this case unless we
> decide a default value should be used instead.
>
I should also mention that I am +0 on the marshal.load* change. I
could be convinced to try to pursue a mutable co_filenme direction,
but considering the BDFL likes the marshal.load* approach and it opens
up the possibility of compacting the marshal format I am leaning
towards sticking with this initial direction.
Why not just try the code I posted earlier, that doesn't need a
mutable attribute OR an API change?
_______________________________________________
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
