On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:59, Brett Cannon<brett at python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27, Antoine Pitrou<solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >> Brett Cannon <brett <at> python.org> writes: >>> >>> I will plan to take this approach then; >>> http://bugs.python.org/issue6811 will track all of this. Since this is >>> a 3.2 thing I am not going to rush to implement this. >> >> I still don't understand what the point is of this complicated approach (adding >> an argument to marshal.load()) compared to the simple and obvious approach >> (making co_filename mutable). > > If we add the argument to marshal.load* we can eventually drop the > file location string from marshal data entirely by requiring people to > specify the filename to use when the code object is created. Making > co_filename mutable simply doesn't allow for this case unless we > decide a default value should be used instead. > I should also mention that I am +0 on the marshal.load* change. I could be convinced to try to pursue a mutable co_filenme direction, but considering the BDFL likes the marshal.load* approach and it opens up the possibility of compacting the marshal format I am leaning towards sticking with this initial direction. -Brett
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