PEP 3147 - new .pyc format

Daniel Fetchinson fetchinson at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 1 21:19:52 CET 2010


>> I also think the PEP is a great idea and proposes a solution to a real
>> problem. But I also hear the 'directory clutter' argument and I'm really
>> concerned too, having all these extra directories around (and quite a
>> large number of them indeed!).
>
> Keep in mind that if you don't explicitly ask for the proposed feature,
> you won't see any change at all. You need to run Python with the -R
> switch, or set an environment variable. The average developer won't see
> any clutter at all unless she is explicitly supporting multiple versions.
>
>
>
>> How about this scheme:
>>
>> 1. install python source files to a shared (among python installations)
>> location /this/is/shared
>> 2. when python X.Y imports a source file from /this/is/shared it will
>> create pyc files in its private area /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/
>
> $ touch /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/STEVEN
> touch: cannot touch `/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/STEVEN': Permission
> denied
>
> There's your first problem: most users don't have write-access to the
> private area.

True, I haven't thought about that (I should have though).

> When you install a package, you normally do so as root, and
> it all works. When you import a module and it gets compiled as a .pyc
> file, you're generally running as a regular user.
>
>
>> Time comparison would be between /this/is/shared/x.py and
>> /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/x.pyc, for instance.
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "time comparison".

I meant the comparison of timestamps on .py and .pyc files in order to
determine which is newer and if a recompilation should take place or
not.

> [...]
>> In /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages there would be only pyc files with
>> magic number matching python X.Y.
>
> Personally, I think it is a terribly idea to keep the source file and
> byte code file in such radically different places. They should be kept
> together. What you call "clutter" I call having the files that belong
> together kept together.

I see why you think so, it's reasonable, however there is compelling
argument, I think, for the opposite view: namely to keep things
separate. An average developer definitely wants easy access to .py
files. However I see no good reason for having access to .pyc files. I
for one have never inspected a .pyc file. Why would you want to have a
.pyc file at hand?

If we don't really want to have .pyc files in convenient locations
because we (almost) never want to access them really, then I'd say
it's a good idea to keep them totally separate and so make don't get
in the way.

>> So, basically nothing would change only the location of py and pyc files
>> would be different from current behavior, but the same algorithm would
>> be run to determine which one to load, when to create a pyc file, when
>> to ignore the old one, etc.
>
> What happens when there is a .pyc file in the same location as the .py
> file? Because it *will* happen. Does it get ignored, or does it take
> precedence over the site specific file?
>
> Given:
>
>     ./module.pyc
>     /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/module.pyc
>
> and you execute "import module", which gets used? Note that in this
> situation, there may or may not be a module.py file.
>
>
>> What would be wrong with this setup?
>
> Consider:
>
>     ./module.py
>     ./package/module.py
>
> Under your suggestion, both of these will compile to
>
>     /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/module.pyc

I see the problems with my suggestion. However it would be great if in
some other way the .pyc files could be kept out of the way. Granted, I
don't have a good proposal for this.

Cheers,
Daniel


-- 
Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown



More information about the Python-list mailing list