On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, at 14:43, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, at 14:19, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Nice one. > > > > > > It would be nice to specify the various APIs needed as well. > > > > The compileall and py_compile ones? > > > > Yes, and the SipHash mod to specify the key you mentioned. Done. > > > > > > Why do you keep the mtime-based format as an option? (Maybe because it's > > > faster? Did you measure it?) > > > > I haven't actually measured anything, but stating a file will definitely > > be faster than reading it completely and hashing it. I suppose if the > > speed difference between timestamp-based and hash-based pycs turned out > > to be small we could feel good about dropping the timestamp format > > completely. However, that difference might be hard to determine > > definitely as I expect the speed hit will vary widely based on system > > parameters such as disk speed and page cache size. > > > > My goal in this PEP was to preserve the current pyc invalidation > > behavior, which works well today for many use cases, as the default. The > > hash-based pycs are reserved for distribution and other power use cases. > > > > OK, maybe you can clarify that a bit in the PEP. I've added a paragraph to the Rationale section.
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