On 11/10/05, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 04:33 PM 11/9/2005 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >On 11/9/05, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > > > By the way, while we're on this subject, can we make the optimization > > > options be part of the compile() interface? Right now the distutils has to > > > actually exec another Python process whenever you want to compile > > > code with > > > a different optimization level than what's currently in effect, whereas if > > > it could pass the desired level to compile(), this wouldn't be necessary. > > > >Makes sense to me; we need a patch of course. > > But before we can do that, it's not clear to me if it should be part of the > existing "flags" argument, or whether it should be separate. Similarly, > whether it's just going to be a level or an optimization bitmask in its own > right might be relevant too. > > For the current use case, obviously, a level argument suffices, with 'None' > meaning "whatever the command-line level was" for backward > compatibility. And I guess we could go with that for now easily enough, > I'd just like to know whether any of the AST or optimization mavens had > anything they were planning in the immediate future that might affect how > the API addition should be structured. I'm not a big user of this API, please design as you see fit. -- --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