Re: Optimization levels embedded in .pyo file names?

On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:28 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

>Something I have been thinking about is whether we should start embedding
>the -O option into the bytecode file name, e.g., foo.cpython-35.O2.pyo

+1 - we've had some trouble in the past in Debian with the name collisions on
.pyo for the different optimization levels.

>I would love to even go so far as to say that we drop the .pyo file
>extension and make what has normally been .pyc files be .O0.pyc and what
>has usually been -O and -OO be .O1.pyc and .O2.pyc, but my suspicion is
>that it might break too much code in a transition and so .pyc stays as such
>and then .O1.pyo and .O2.pyo comes into existence from the stdlib.

I actually *would* go so far.  I thought about it during the PEP 3147
time frame but it was out-of-scope at the time.  A transition period might be
necessary (and/or a switch to choose) but I think it's a good end state.

Cheers,
-Barry