On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com>wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:46:50 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:20:24 -0700 > > Toshio Kuratomi <a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand > correctly, > > > > everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading > it. > > > > > > > > So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all that > is > > > > around) when -O is not specified? > > > > > > > > The only technical reason I can see why -O should be required for a > .pyo > > > > file to be used (*if* it is the only thing around) is if it won't > *run* > > > > without the -O switch. Is there any expectation that that will ever > be > > > > the case? > > > > > > > Yes. For instance, if I create a .pyo with -OO it wouldn't have > docstrings. > > > Another piece of code can legally import that and try to use the > docstring > > > for something. This would fail if only the .pyo was present. > > > > Not only docstrings, but also asserts. I think running a pyo without -O > > would be a bug. > > Again, a program that depends on asserts is buggy. > > As Ethan pointed out we are asking about the case where someone is > *deliberately* setting the .pyo file up to be run as the "normal" > case. > > I'm not sure we want to support that, I just want us to be clear > about why we don't :) PyPy toolchain is an example of such buggy program. And oh any tests. I would not be impressed if my python read .pyo files out of nowhere when not running with -O flag (I'm trying very hard to never run python with -O, because it's different python after all)
_______________________________________________ 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
