On Aug 31, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > I am really not opinionated on this one. I was just pointing out > that choosing a > non-obvious solution generally requires good reasons to do so. The > marshal > format compaction sounds like premature optimization, since nobody > seems to have > formulated such a request. Every time I've been bitten by the wrong co_filename values (usually from tracebacks), changing the way marshal creates code objects to use a values passed in has been the thing that made the most sense to me. The feature request that's involved here, getting correct co_filename values, can be implemented in different ways, sure. This particular change produces the least impact in the because it *doesn't* change the mutability of code objects. I for one appreciate that, mostly because I'm simply wary of making code objects mutable in this way having unexpected side effects in some library. -Fred -- Fred Drake <fdrake at acm.org>
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