Maurice LING wrote: > Hi, > > I've been using Python for about 2 years now, for my honours project and > now my postgrad project. I must say that I am loving it more and more
> now. From my knowledge, Python bytecodes are not back-compatible. I must > say that my technical background isn't strong enough but is there any > good reason for not being back-compatible in bytecodes? > It *shouldn't* be a problem for pure python modules. The interpreter will recognise that the bytecode has the wrong 'magic number' and recompile. Seeing as a new major version of python will probably be installed in a new directory at the very least you will have to copy the modules across. If they have install files (or a setup.py) wouldn't it be better to use that *anyway* ? > My problem is not about pure python modules or libraries but the problem > is with 3rd party libraries with C bindings (not python pure). It means > that with every upgrade of python, I have to reinstall all my 3rd party > libraries which can be quite a bit of work... > It is a nuisance. It's more of a nuisance when third part modules with 'c' components are compiled for the new version of python (a windows specific problem). I did find that the last upgrade forced me to evaluate which extensions I actually used. The answer was 'a few less than I thought'. It became a good opportunity to spring clean my 'site-packages' folder. Best Regards, Fuzzy http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python > I do hope this problem will be sorted out some day. > > Cheers > Maurice -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
