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~
_______________________________________________
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
