[Import-SIG] PEP for the removal of PYO files
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Mar 1 01:48:44 CET 2015
On 1 Mar 2015 07:16, "Brett Cannon" <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:57 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:06:59 +0000
>> Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A period was chosen over a hyphen as a separator so as to distinguish
>> > clearly that the optimization level is not part of the interpreter
>> > version as specified by the cache tag. It also lends to the use of
>> > the period in the file name to delineate semantically different
>> > concepts.
>> Indeed but why would other implementations have to mimick CPython here?
>> Perhaps the whole idea of differing "optimization" levels doesn't make
>> sense for them.
> Directly it might not, but if they support the AST module along with
passing AST nodes to compile() then they would implicitly support
optimizations for bytecode through custom loaders.
> I also checked PyPy and IronPython 3 and they both support -O.
> But an implementation that chose to skip the ast module and not support
-O is the best argument to support Nick's ask to not specify the
optimization if it is 0 (although I'm not saying that's enough to sway me
to change the PEP).
I was only +0 on that particular idea myself, so I agree it's better to
keep things consistent. However, the PEP should explicitly define what
happens if the empty string (rather than None) is passed in. Since we need
to define a standard way of handling that anyway, it could be a reasonable
API for suppressing the new name segment entirely (even if CPython doesn't
make use of it outside the test suite).
> Import-SIG mailing list
> Import-SIG at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Import-SIG