A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098141.html below:

[Python-Dev] __file__ and bytecode-only

[Python-Dev] __file__ and bytecode-only [Python-Dev] __file__ and bytecode-onlyGreg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Thu Mar 4 04:18:09 CET 2010
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 03, 2010, at 07:37 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
>
>> Couldn't vendors just replace the real .py files with empty files?
> 
> Yes, I think that's a possibility.  What would people think about that?

Seems like a perverse thing to have to do to me.

Also a bit fragile, since you would have to make
sure that the empty .py files were dated older
than the .pyc files and stayed that way, lest
Python try to recompile them and wipe out your
code.

You would also have to be careful to build
installers that didn't recompile .py files on
installation. (Haven't had much experience building
installers using distutils, so I'm not sure
how much of a problem that would be.)

-- 
Greg
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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