Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> writes: > P.S. Translation of the double negative: I don't find any of the > solutions, even the current .pyc/.pyo approach, to be particularly > elegant, so I can't really say I like any of them in an absolute > sense. However, having a single cache folder inside each Python source > folder seems to strike the best balance between keeping a tidy > filesystem and still being able to locate a cached file given only the > location of the source file (or vice-versa) without using any > Python-specific tools, so it is the approach I personally prefer.
Something I think is being lost here: AFAICT, the impetus behind this PEP is to allow OS distributions to decouple the location of the compiled bytecode files from the location of the source code files. (If I'm mistaken, then clearly I don't understand the PEP's purpose at all and I'd love to have this misconception corrected.) If that's so, then I don't see how what you suggest above is any significat progress toward that goal. It still tightly couples the locations of the source code files and the complied bytecode files. Having a distinct cache of compiled bytecode files addresses this better. -- \ “I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. | `\ But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take | _o__) it seriously.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ 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
