Whoa. This thread already exploded. I'm picking this message to respond to because it reflects my own view after reading the PEP.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Simon Cross > <hodgestar+python...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't know whether I in favour of using a single pyr folder or not >> but if a single folder is used I'd definitely prefer the folder to be >> called __pyr__ rather than .pyr. Exactly what I would prefer. I worry that having many small directories is a fairly poor use of the filesystem. A quick scan of /usr/local/lib/python3.2 on my Linux box reveals 1163 .py files but only 57 directories). > Do you have any specific reason for that? > > Using the leading dot notation is an established pattern to hide > non-essential information from directory views. What makes this > non-applicable in this situation and a custom Python notation better? Because we don't want to completely hide the pyc files. Also the dot naming convention is somewhat platform-specific. FWIW in Python 3, the __file__ variable always points to the .py source filename. I agreed with Georg that there ought to be an API for finding the pyc file for a module. This could be a small addition to the PEP. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
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