[Python-ideas] Updated PEP 432: Simplifying the CPython update sequence (original) (raw)
Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Sat Jan 5 23:54:52 CET 2013
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] Updated PEP 432: Simplifying the CPython update sequence
- Next message: [Python-ideas] Updated PEP 432: Simplifying the CPython update sequence
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 1/5/2013 4:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Also, I suggest taking the opportunity to change the sense of flags such as nosite and dontwritebytecode. I find it much more difficult to reason that "dontwritebytecode = 0" means do write bytecode, rather than "writebytecode = 1". I.e. positives are better than double-negatives.
IE, you prefer positive flags, with some on by default, over having all flags indicate a non-default condition. I would too, but I don't hack on the C code base. 'dont_write_bytecode' is especially ugly.
In any case, this seems orthogonal to Nick's PEP and should be a separate discussion (on pydev), tracker issue, and patch. Is the current tradition just happenstance or something that some of the major C developers strongly care about?
-- Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] Updated PEP 432: Simplifying the CPython update sequence
- Next message: [Python-ideas] Updated PEP 432: Simplifying the CPython update sequence
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]