I'm opposed to this idea. It creates overhead in the size of .pyc files,
No it doesn't.
for no additional value that couldn't be obtained otherwise.
Martin:
I know it is possible to do all this with existing python facilities. I did write such a dynamic code framework in python. Specifically I used a function 'deyndef(code)' which was exactly like 'def' but also stored the source string in a dictionary.
The key point is that I think think should be the job of the parser and the functionality provided at the interactive prompt w/o the user having to write 'dyndef' or store the code of exec's or request from himself to use specific commands to create functions. It should be transparent built into python.
A file is precisely the level of granularity that is burnt into the Python language. A module is *always* a file, executed from top to bottom. It is not possible to recreate the source code of a module if you have only the source code of all functions, and all classes.
That's exactly the rationale for NOT combining __source__ with import. It's in the PEP.
It appears that there are the 'module people' who find this feature irrelevant. Indeed. If we are interested in distributing modules and increasing the number of people who use python programs,then __source__ is redundant. OTOH, programming python is easy and fun and I think the proposed feature will make it even more fun and it aims in increasing the number of people who program python for their every day tasks. It'd be interesting to hear if the developers of IDLE/ipython/etc could use this.
Oh well. I guess I'm ahead of my time again:)
St.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
