> Not directly relavent to the PEP, but... > > Guido van Rossum <guido@zope.com> writes: > > > Q. What about code compiled by the codeop module? > > > > A. Alas, this will always use the default semantics (set by the -D > > command line option). This is a general problem with the > > future statement; PEP 236[4] lists it as an unresolved > > problem. You could have your own clone of codeop.py that > > includes a future division statement, but that's not a general > > solution. > > Did you look at my Nasty Hack(tm) to bodge around this? It's at > > http://starship.python.net/crew/mwh/hacks/codeop-hack.diff > > if you haven't. I'm not sure it will work with what you're planning > for division, but it works for generators (and worked for nested > scopes when that was relavent). Ouch. Nasty. Hat off to you for thinking of this! > There are a host of saner ways round this, of course - like adding an > optional "flags" argument to compile, for instance. We'll have to keep that in mind. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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