>> In the absence of this proposal, what happens today if a source file
>> is located in a zip file and there is no bytecode with it? Does a
>> bytecode file get written? If so, is it actually inserted into the
>> zip file?
Paul> There is no writing. Zipfiles are treated as read-only.
That's fine with me, which means PEP 304 addresses a potential need for that
community.
Paul> In particular, the PEP needs to say something about what, if any,
Paul> requirements it places on the writers of import hooks ("If an
Paul> import hook attempts to cache compiled bytecode, in a similar way
Paul> to the builtin filesystem support, then it needs to check the
Paul> environment variable, and...")
>>
>> I'll save your message, but I'd like to defer this issue for the time
>> being.
Paul> That's entirely reasonable, but it needs to be looked at at some
Paul> point. Can I suggest an "Open issues" section for now?
Sure. I'll add one.
>> I don't understand. Are you saying imp.find_module()'s results are
>> undefined or that it simply doesn't exist?
Paul> Read [PEP 302] for details, ...
Will do.
Paul> In all honesty, though, the whole issue of locating a module's
Paul> source code is an open one. There's a new module in 2.3a1 (can't
Paul> recall the name) which is designed to help with the problem. Guido
Paul> wrote it when the problem became evident with zip imports. It
Paul> should probably be updated to cope with this change, and the PEP
Paul> should refer to it.
I remember something (in the sandbox perhaps). I'll scrounge around for it.
S
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