Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote: >> OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand correctly, >> everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading it. >> >> So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all that is >> around) when -O is not specified? >> >> The only technical reason I can see why -O should be required for a .pyo >> file to be used (*if* it is the only thing around) is if it won't *run* >> without the -O switch. Is there any expectation that that will ever be >> the case? >> > Yes. For instance, if I create a .pyo with -OO it wouldn't have docstrings. > Another piece of code can legally import that and try to use the docstring > for something. This would fail if only the .pyo was present. Why should it fail? -OO causes docstring access to return None, just as if a docstring had not been specified in the first place. Any decent code will be checking for an undefined docstring -- after all, they are not rare. ~Ethan~
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