-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ian Bicking 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. 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.
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.)
The consensus as I recal was that a .pyc file in the main package directory would be importable without a .py file (just as it is today), but that .pyc files in the cache directory would not be importable in the absence of a .py file. Package distributors who wanted to ship bytecode-only distributions would need to arrange to have the .pyc files created "in place' (by disabling the cachedir option) or move them from the cachedir before bundling. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkuJUFIACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ6pnwCfVmDO8uiP9eSsjJf4ees35xus SEUAn0oKJwv9bGksxcMTHSfBbDV2Ujb7 =Vdpi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----