Ben Finney wrote: > 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.)
No, the purpose is to allow the same source file to be shared between multiple versions of the Python interpreter without their compiled files conflicting as they do now. It's the support for multiple .pyc and .pyo files per .py file that is the significant change, not the specific location of those files. Being able to get rid of the existing .pyc/.pyo clutter at the same time is just a bonus. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
