On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:58 PM, 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. 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. > > 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.)
Barry's PEP would fix this even if we kept supporting .pyc-only files: the lingering .pyc files will be in the __pycache__ directory which is *not* searched -- only .pyc files directly in the source directory will be found -- where the PEP will never place them, at least not by default. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
