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
> refer
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 file
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
