On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Greg Ewing <greg.ewing <at> canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
The main point of the __pycache__ proposal is to solve the needs of
Ubuntu/Debian packagers. If you are developing (rather than deploying or
building packages), you shouldn't have these needs AFAICT.
Maybe it's one point, but I'm not sure it's the *main* one.
It's the only reason the PEP was originally designed, and proposed.
At least one additional use case has appeared. Actually, my use case was
mentioned long ago, but I didn't really push (e.g. by writing a patch) and
nobody jumped on it. But this PEP solves my case too, so it should not be
ignored just because the immediate impetus for the PEP is another case.
Personally I would benefit most from it during development.
Why? What benefit would it bring to you?
I'm sure Greg will jump in if I'm wrong about what he is saying, but the
benefit to me and to Greg and to others writing .py code is that our
directories will contain *.py and __pycache__, rather than *.py and *.pyc.
So it will be much easier to see what is actually there.
Or if we're using SVN and we do "svn status", the only spurious result
will be "? __pycache__" rather than "? X.pyc" for every X.py in the
directory.
Or whatever other good effects come from having less junk in our source
directories.
Directory tidiness is a positive general feature with at least a few
specific benefits.
Isaac Morland CSCF Web Guru
DC 2554C, x36650 WWW Software Specialist
_______________________________________________
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
