On Monday, June 10, 2013 6:36:04 PM UTC-4, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:27 AM, dhyams <dhyams> wrote: > > > I guess I'll have to agree to disagree here...the situation I'm in is that > > I want a user to be able to write a mathematical plugin with as little > > effort as possible. So I want the "from __future__ import division" to be > > baked into the plugin, without have to require the user to put that bit of > > confusingness at the top of every plugin they write. It's a matter of > > elegance to the end-user, especially because I want to make the plugins as > > idiot-proof as I can. It will be common for a user not familiar with > > python to make the common 1/2 mistake (vs. 1.0/2.0). > > > > > > Is that not a reasonable use-case? > > > > Can you read the file into a string, prepend a future directive, and > > then compile the string?
Technically yes, except that now there is complication of writing the modified module back to a file so that I can still use py_compile.compile() to byte compile that code. If I don't do that, then I would be duplicating the work of py_compile.compile(), which wouldn't be good design. And I some file caching already going on that is reasonably complicated already, that I didn't want to add another level of failure modes to. > Alternatively, can you switch to Python 3, where the future directive > > isn't necessary? :) If only all of my dependencies were Python 3 ready ;) But that really doesn't solve the underlying problem...surely there will be other "futures" that people will want to use when moving from Python 3.x to Python y.z, for example. > > If all else fails, you should be able to just copy and mod the > > function into your own source file. That's kind of where I am now, but IMO the small addition of the flags argument to py_compile.compile() takes care of things. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
