On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 16:58, Ian Bicking <i...@colorstudy.com> wrote:
> The one issue I thought would be resolved by not easily allowing > .pyc-only distributions is the case when you rename a file (say > module.py to newmodule.py) and there is a module.pyc laying around, > and you don't get the ImportError you would expect from "import > module" -- and to make it worse everything basically works, except > there's two versions of the module that slowly become different. Yes, that problem would go away if bytecode-only modules were no longer supported. > This > regularly causes problems for me, and those problems would get more > common and obscure if the pyc files were stashed away in a more > invisible location. > > That has never been an issue with this proposal. The bytecode pulled from the __pycache__ directory only occurs if source exists. What we have been discussing is whether bytecode-only files in the directory of a package or something exists. -Brett > I can't even tell what the current proposal is; maybe this is > resolved? If distributing bytecode required renaming pyc files to .py > as Glenn suggested that would resolve the problem quite nicely from my > perspective. (Frankly I find the whole use case for distributing > bytecodes a bit specious, but whatever.) > > -- > Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org | > http://twitter.com/ianbicking > _______________________________________________ > 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/brett%40python.org >
_______________________________________________ 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
