At 01:39 PM 8/31/2009 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >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. Why not just try the code I posted earlier, that doesn't need a mutable attribute OR an API change?
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