Tim Peters wrote: > > [M.-A. Lemburg] > > FYI, I've bumped the PYC magic in a non-standard way (the old > > standard broke on 2002-01-01); please review: > > Fine by me, except you should also check in a NEWS blurb about it. The > current NEWS file says: > > """ > - Because Python's magic number scheme broke on January 1st, we decided > to stop Python development. Thanks for all the fish! > """ > > That's why PythonLabs hasn't done much of anything on Python since 2.2 was > released <wink>. Done. > > algorithm relying on the above scheme. Perhaps we should simply > > start counting in increments of 10 from now on ?! > > Why 10? I'd rather see it incremented by 1. If you respond that you want > to make room for more hacks akin to -U, my response would be that's exactly > what I want to prevent by blessing 1 <0.4 wink>. The reason is that I don't want to break the -U scheme. I know it's a hack, but until someone comes up with a better way to add flags to store PYC compile options, we'll have to stick with it (-U changes the semantics of the language in a pretty nasty way ... nothing works anymore ;-). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
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