Nick Coghlan wrote: > Ron Adam wrote: >> I think I misunderstood this at first. >> >> It looks like, while developing a python 3.2+ program, if you don't >> create an empty __pycache__ directory, everything will still work, you >> just won't get the .pyc files. That can be a good thing during >> development because you also will not have any problems with old .pyc >> files hanging around if you move or rename files. > > The behaviour you described (not creating __pycache__ automatically) was > just a suggestion in this thread. > > The behaviour in the actual PEP (and what will be implemented for 3.2+) > is to create __pycache__ if it is missing. > > Cheers, > Nick. OK :-) hmmmm... unless there is a __pycache__ *file* located there first. ;-) Not that I can think of any good reason to do that at this moment. Ron
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