Re: [Python-Dev] PyFAQ: thread-safe interpreter operations
Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Nick Coghlan schrieb: >> Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> I personally consider it "good style" to rely on implementation details >>> of CPython; >> Is there a 'do not' missing somewhere in there? > > No - I really mean it. I can find nothing wrong with people relying on > reference counting to close files, for example. It's a property of > CPython, and not guaranteed in other Python implementations - yet it > works in a well-defined way in CPython. Code that relies on that feature > is not portable, but portability is only one goal in software > development, and may be irrelevant for some projects. Cool, that's what I thought you meant (and it's a point I actually agree with). I was uncertain enough about your intent that I felt it was worth asking the question, though :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] DRAFT: python-dev summary for 2006-11-01 to 2006-11-15
Hi Steven, On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:48:44PM -0700, Steven Bethard wrote: > (... pyc files ...) > For people wanting to ship just bytecode, the cached > .pyc files could be renamed to .py files and then those could be > shipped and imported. Yuk! Not renamed to .py files. Distributing .py files that are actually bytecode looks like a new funny way to create confusion. No, I was half-heartedly musing about introducing Yet Another file extension (.pyc for caching and .pyX for importable bytecode, or possibly the other way around). A bientot, Armin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] DRAFT: python-dev summary for 2006-11-01 to 2006-11-15
Armin Rigo wrote: > Yuk! Not renamed to .py files. Distributing .py files that are > actually bytecode looks like a new funny way to create confusion. No, I > was half-heartedly musing about introducing Yet Another file extension > (.pyc for caching and .pyX for importable bytecode, or possibly the > other way around). an alternative would be to only support source-less PYC import from ZIP archives (or other non-filesystem importers). ___ 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
