On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, James C. Ahlstrom wrote: > "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > > I guess it would be ok to waste space. You could provide > > a .cleanup() or .rewrite() method that takes care of > > reorganizing the file to fill up the gaps. > > OK, adding a duplicate name replaces the old file. But it shouldn't print a warning(!). If an application wants to replace a file, then stuff shouldn't appear on stdout as a result. > > Well the module seems to work just fine with compression > > on, so disallowing it or issuing a warning would reduce its value, > > IMHO. > > Yes compression works, but 90% of Python installations don't have > zlib, so it is an ERROR to create archives with compression when > these archives are distributed to other sites. While it may be problem to distribute them to other sites, that is not up to the library. If I want compression, then I should get compression. A library module should not determine application-level policy. The warning that __init__ prints shouldn't be there. Really: there should not be a single "print" in the library (well, printdir() is fine... that's what it is supposed to do; printing in the test code would be fine). In normal, or even exceptional(!), operation there should never be a print. > > How about making compression a boolean value and then > > converting any true value to 8 ? > > It would close the door to future or other compression methods. > Currently the method must be 0 or 8 or a traceback will result. I definitely agree with JimA here. For example, maybe we want bzip compression in there. Sure, non-portable, but that's my problem :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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