Ben Finney wrote: > Right; I don't see who would disagree with that. I don't see any > conflict between “decouple compiled bytecode file locations from source > file locations” versus “predictable location for the compiled bytecode > files”.
The more decoupled they are, the harder it is to manually find the bytecode file. With the current .pyc scheme, .pyr folders or an SVN style Python cache directory, finding the bytecode file is pretty easy, since the cached file is either in the same directory as the source file or in a subdirectory. With any form of shadow hierarchy though, it gets trickier because you have to: 1. Find the root of the shadow hierarchy 2. Navigate within the shadow hierarchy down to the point that matches where your source file was It's a fairly significant increase in mental overhead. It gets much worse if the location of the shadow hierarchy root is configurable in any way (e.g. based on sys.path contents or an environment variable). Restricting the caching mechanism to the folder containing the source file keeps things a lot simpler. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com