Re: PEP for the removal of PYO files

On 1 Mar 2015 07:16, "Brett Cannon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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).

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).

Cheers,
Nick.

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

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