Gordon McMillan writes: > I'd also like to point out that archives *can* be used in a > development situation. Obviously I wouldn't bother putting a > module under current development into an archive. But if the > source is still installed and you haven't mucked with the > __file__ attribute when you put it in the archive, then > tracebacks will show you what you need. IDLE doesn't know > the difference. So for most developers, the standard library > can be served from an archive with no effect (other than speed). I don't see why we can't just add the source to the archive as well; this would allow proper tracebacks even outside the development of the library. Not including sources would cleanly result in the same situation as we currently see when there's only a .pyc file. Am I missing something fundamental? -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives
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