On Monday 17 November 2003 03:35 pm, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There was some discussion on comp.lang.python about
> > standardizing the bytecode awhile back, but the consensus
> > was that the standardized part of Python is *the source code*.
> > IMHO, they (/we) don't want to encourage obfuscated
> > distributions of Python packages. Python is a very open-source
> > centric language and community.
> Rest assured, nobody on this list so far has been trying to have Debian
> ship bytecode-only Python modules.
Yeah, I know. I was just trying to express *why* the community
doesn't want to make the bytecode highly standardized (in
contrast to Java, which makes it the top priority).
> What we are trying to know is if we can safely store sets of
> .{py,pyc,pyo} in /usr/share/package/ (in the case of .py files that are
> architecture-independent, which is almost always true). This requires
> the .pyc and .pyo to be architecture-independent because /usr/share is
> supposed to be shareable between several machines (via NFS, usually)
> whose architectures can differ.
When I wrote the previous message I was thinking this was pretty
unlikely to be good policy, even if it would work now. But as I
think about it, maybe you're right and the pyc/pyo files will
remain arch independent -- they are processed on a kind of
virtual machine by the interpreter, AFAIK (which is not too
much -- I'm heavy Python user but not developer, so I've never
seen this code). I think that heavy optimization (e.g. trying to
speed code up on a vector processor), will be the domain
of JIT compilers like psycho, and not Python itself. Now I'm
curious too.
The place to ask is comp.lang.python of course, or perhaps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] if no joy there. In fact, I just
asked, so we'll see if I get any useful responses.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
