Gregory Szorc writes: > But the great many of us still on 2.7 likely won't see a benefit, > correct? How insane would it be for people to do things like pass -S > in the shebang and manually implement the parts of site.py that are > actually needed?
Well, since it probably won't work ....<wink/> That is to say, site.py typically provides different facilities to different programs -- that's why some parts of it show up as unneeded. So you need to carefully analyze *each* *subprocess* that you propose to invoke with -S and determine which parts of site.py it needs. In most cases I suspect you would better look at alternatives that avoid invoking a subprocess per task, but instead maintains a pool of worker processes (or threads). You might even be able to save network traffic or IPC by caching replies to common requests in the worker processes, which may save more per task than process invocation. Even where -S makes sense, I would suggest invoking "python -S" explicitly from the parent process rather than munging the shebang in the children. (You do need to be careful to audit changes in the child programs to be sure they aren't changed in ways that change site.py requirements. Putting -S in the shebang may help catch such problems early.) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
