Mark wrote: > E.g. say I have a python script "myprog.py". I could just execute > that directly each time but that means it is "compiled" each time > I run it which is not efficient and adds to startup time.
Did you measure the performance hit in your case? > I have one of these stubs for all my python scripts I've created > so far. Is there not a better way? Do I have to create a separate > stub each time? I find it a bit messy to require a pair of scripts > for each utility and it also contributes some inefficiency. Given > the above stub is so boilerplate, why does python not provide a > general stub/utility mechanism for this? I've noticed that calling the interpreter with pre-compiled pyc files also works. Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #68: only available on a need to know basis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
