[Python-Dev] file (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Sat Feb 27 02:09:16 CET 2010

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 16:58, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:

The one issue I thought would be resolved by not easily allowing .pyc-only distributions is the case when you rename a file (say module.py to newmodule.py) and there is a module.pyc laying around, and you don't get the ImportError you would expect from "import module" -- and to make it worse everything basically works, except there's two versions of the module that slowly become different.

Yes, that problem would go away if bytecode-only modules were no longer supported.

This regularly causes problems for me, and those problems would get more common and obscure if the pyc files were stashed away in a more invisible location.

That has never been an issue with this proposal. The bytecode pulled from the pycache directory only occurs if source exists. What we have been discussing is whether bytecode-only files in the directory of a package or something exists.

-Brett

I can't even tell what the current proposal is; maybe this is resolved? If distributing bytecode required renaming pyc files to .py as Glenn suggested that would resolve the problem quite nicely from my perspective. (Frankly I find the whole use case for distributing bytecodes a bit specious, but whatever.)

-- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org | http://twitter.com/ianbicking

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100226/d7c5cada/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list