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).

> Do you have any specific reason for that?
> Using the leading dot notation is an established pattern to hide
> non-essential information from directory views. What makes this
> non-applicable in this situation and a custom Python notation better?

Because we don't want to completely hide the pyc files. Also the dot
naming convention is somewhat platform-specific.

FWIW in Python 3, the __file__ variable always points to the .py
source filename. I agreed with Georg that there ought to be an API for
finding the pyc file for a module. This could be a small addition to
the PEP.

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Python-Dev mailing list

Reply via email to