Perhaps I should be a bit clearer.
When I said the "level 3" approach "appears to be inline with the
direction Victor Stinner is going in for PEP 511", it was mostly at a
superficial level. Meaning:
- PEP 511 still appears to use integer (unnamed) optimization levels
for alternate transformers (fat 0, 1, and 2). I assumed (perhaps
incorrectly) that you could provide a list of transformers
("opt,fat,bar") but that each transformer would still contain a number
of different off/on toggles, arbitrarily identified as integer flags
like 0, 1, and 2. I should go back and read that PEP again. I don't
recall seeing where the 0, 1, and 2 came from in the fat examples.
os.cpython-36.fat-0.pyc
os.cpython-36.fat-1.pyc
os.cpython-36.fat-2.pyc
- Secondly, I reviewed PEP 511 when I initially started working on the
naive "level 3" approach to make sure what I proposed didn't impede
the progress of PEP 511 (or more realistically make my attempt
obsolete). Since PEP 511 didn't seem to deviate much from the current
integer flags (aside from allowing multiple different named sets of
integer flags), I figured that whatever approach PEP 511 took with the
existing optimization levels (0, 1, and 2) would presumably also work
for a new level 3.
I hope that makes sense... If not, let me know & I'll try again
tomorrow to be clearer.
PS. I think it sounds like I'm now re-advocating for the simple "level
3" approach. I'm not – just trying to explain my earlier thought
process. I'm open to all kinds of feedback & suggestions.
Thanks again folks!
Cheers,
--diana
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
