Trent Mick wrote: > > But this would not solve the problem with 8 byte versus 4 byte = timestamps > > in the header on 64-bit OSes. Trent Mick pointed this out. >=20 > I kind of intimated but did not make it clear: I wouldn't worry about = the > limitations of a 4 byte timestamp too much. That value is not going to > overflow for another 38 years. Presumably the .pyc header (if such a = thing > even still exists then) will change by then. note that py_compile (which is used to create PYC files after = installation, among other things) treats the time as an unsigned integer. so in other words, if we fix the built-in "PYC compiler" so it does the = same thing before 2038, we can spend another 68 years on coming up with a really future proof design... ;-) I really hope Py3K will be out before 2106. as for the other changes: *please* don't break the header layout in the 1.X series. and *please* don't break the "if the magic is the same, I = can unmarshal and run this code blob without crashing the interpreter" rule (raising an exception would be okay, though). </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4