On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> pysandbox is based on safelite.py, project written by tav one year ago (search
> tav in python-dev archive, February 2009). I tested RestrictedPython, but the
> approach is different (rewrite bytecode) and the project is not maintained
> sin
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> 1. Why the -R flag? It seems like this is a uniform improvement, so it
> should be the default. Have faith in your design! ;-)
+1 for a single strategy that is used in all cases. The current
solution could be phased out across multiple rel
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Simon Cross
wrote:
> I don't know whether I in favour of using a single pyr folder or not
> but if a single folder is used I'd definitely prefer the folder to be
> called __pyr__ rather than .pyr.
Do you have any specific reason for that?
Using the leading dot no
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> 2. Vitor's suggestion to make 1 "pyr" directory per directory and
> stick all the .pyc's there would solve the "pyc clutter" problem. Any
> reason not to do that? Trying to make it 1-pyr-per-directory-hierarchy
> as Ben suggested seems unwo
Hi,
I'm a relative outsider to core development (I'm just a Plone release
manager), but'll allow myself a couple of questions. Feel free to
ignore them, if you think they are not relevant at this point :-) I'd
note that I'm generally enthusiastic and supportive of the proposal :)
As a data point,
