On Feb 26, 2010, at 02:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >Here is a question for Barry to think about if he decides to move forward >with all of this: would mixed support for both bytecode-only and >source/bytecode be required for the same directory, or could it be one or >the other but not both? Differing semantics based on what is found in the >directory would make the path hook more expensive (which is a one-time cost >per directory), but it would cut stat calls in the finder in half (which is >a cost made per import).
It seems a bit magical to me, and the rules a bit difficult to predict. For example, what would be the trigger to enable bytecode-only support for a package directory? Would it be the absence of an __init__.py file? What if some .pyc files had .py file but not all of them? Wouldn't the trigger depend on import order? OTOH, maybe you're on to something. Perhaps we could add a flag to the package's namespace to turn this on. You'd have to include the __init__.py to get things going, but after that, everything else in the package could be .pyc-only. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
