At 04:33 PM 11/9/2005 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: >On 11/9/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By the way, while we're on this subject, can we make the optimization > > options be part of the compile() interface? Right now the distutils has to > > actually exec another Python process whenever you want to compile > > code with > > a different optimization level than what's currently in effect, whereas if > > it could pass the desired level to compile(), this wouldn't be necessary. > >Makes sense to me; we need a patch of course.
But before we can do that, it's not clear to me if it should be part of the existing "flags" argument, or whether it should be separate. Similarly, whether it's just going to be a level or an optimization bitmask in its own right might be relevant too. For the current use case, obviously, a level argument suffices, with 'None' meaning "whatever the command-line level was" for backward compatibility. And I guess we could go with that for now easily enough, I'd just like to know whether any of the AST or optimization mavens had anything they were planning in the immediate future that might affect how the API addition should be structured. _______________________________________________ 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
