> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 05:07, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> Barry Warsaw <barry <at> python.org> writes: >>> Python 3 uses the .py file for __file__ but I'd like to see a transition to >>> __source__ for that, with __cache__ for the location of the PVM, JVM, LLVM >>> or >>> whatever compilation cache artifact file. >> Well, I don't think we need another transition... Just keep __file__ for the >> source file, and add a __cache__ or __compiled__ attribute for the compiled >> file(s). > > So what happens when only bytecode is present? As of right now > __file__ is set to the path of the bytecode if no source exists > (needed for reloading along with backwards-compatibility). Would you > set __file__ = __compiled__?
This is what I would propose. There are also shared libraries, so __file__ should really point to the file that is being executed. In the case of a source file, claiming that this is the one that gets executed is fairly accurate even if we had actually loaded the byte code from the cache. The only case when this may be wrong is when somebody sets the timestamp of the source file backwards, or the timestamp of the byte code file forwards. For this case, a second attribute could help (and I would set *that* to None if we only wrote the pyc file, but didn't read it - a library functions would be able to tell where the pyc file should have been written to). > Maybe, but only one of them will be used. Having to check for all of > the possible compiled versions of a module is just a waste of time; > you should only care about what import used to load the module. I agree. Martin _______________________________________________ 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
