Re: PEP for the removal of PYO files

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:57 AM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:06:59 +0000
> Brett Cannon <[email protected]> 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).

_______________________________________________
Import-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/import-sig