On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 16:58, Ian Bicking <ianb@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@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org