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.
Of course, it would also fail under the present behaviour since no .py or .pyc was present to be imported. The error that's displayed might be clearer if we fail when attempting to read a .py/.pyc rather than failing when the docstring is found to be missing, though. -Toshio
pgpqk9ErpLKEV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
