On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:19:52 +0100, Daniel Fetchinson wrote: >> Personally, I think it is a terribly idea to keep the source file and >> byte code file in such radically different places. They should be kept >> together. What you call "clutter" I call having the files that belong >> together kept together. > > I see why you think so, it's reasonable, however there is compelling > argument, I think, for the opposite view: namely to keep things > separate. An average developer definitely wants easy access to .py > files. However I see no good reason for having access to .pyc files. I > for one have never inspected a .pyc file. Why would you want to have a > .pyc file at hand?
If you don't care about access to .pyc files, why do you care where they are? If they are in a subdirectory module.pyr, then shrug and ignore the subdirectory. If you (generic you) are one of those developers who don't care about .pyc files, then when you are browsing your source directory and see this: module.py module.pyc you just ignore the .pyc file. Or delete it, and Python will re-create it as needed. So if you see module.pyr/ just ignore that as well. > If we don't really want to have .pyc files in convenient locations > because we (almost) never want to access them really, then I'd say it's > a good idea to keep them totally separate and so make don't get in the > way. I like seeing them in the same place as the source file, because when I start developing a module, I often end up renaming it multiple times before it settles on a final name. When I rename or move it, I delete the .pyc file, and that ensures that if I miss changing an import, and try to import the old name, it will fail. By hiding the .pyc file elsewhere, it is easy to miss deleting one, and then the import won't fail, it will succeed, but use the old, obsolete byte code. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
