[Python-Dev] Fwd: Request for Pronouncement: PEP 441 (original) (raw)

[Python-Dev] Fwd: Request for Pronouncement: PEP 441 - Improving Python ZIP Application Support

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Tue Feb 24 19:58:37 CET 2015

[Sorry, accidentally dropped the list from this message.]

Here's my review. I really like where this is going but I have a few questions and suggestions (I can't help myself :-).

[I sneaked a peek at the update you sent to peps at python.org.]

"Currently, pyyzer [5] and pex [6] are two tools known to exist." -> "... are two such tools."

It's not stated whether the archive names include the .pyz[w] extension or not (though I'm guessing it's not -- this should be stated).

The naming of the functions feels inconsistent -- maybe pack(directory, target) -> create_archive(directory, archive), and set_interpreter() -> copy_archive(archive, new_archive)?

Why no command-line equivalent for the other two methods? I propose the following interface: if there's only one positional argument, we're asking to print its shebang line; if there are two and the input position is an archive instead of a directory, we're copying. (In the future people will want an option to print more stuff, e.g. the main function or even a full listing.)

I've not seen the pkg.mod:fn notation before. Where is this taken from? Why can't it be pkg.mod.fn?

I'd specify that when the output argument is a file open for writing, it is the caller's responsibility to close the file. Also, can the file be a pipe? (I.e. are we using seek()/tell() or not?) And what about the input archive? Can that be a file open for reading?

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150224/755da6e8/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list