>> PEP 304 would have helped, but it appears to be deceased. > Not sure it's deceased (a dead parrot?) - it's on the standards track, > it hasn't been rejected, and Skip has actually provided a patch to > implement the solution.
It is possible that PEP 304 is really just pining for the fjords, but I don't know. Digging through the newsgroup, it looks like Skip's patch is for UNIX and progress has stalled in trying to get a Windows patch. Really, it's moot, since I'm not going to recompile Python and try to convince everyone to reinstall it. (the latter would be a herculean labor) :P I guess I sort of assumed that Python would ignore the .pyc files if it didn't have read access, but it could be some sort of permissions issue. Only a handful of users have write access. Maybe the issue happens when Python tries to /replace/ .pyc files with newer versions, but doesn't have permission to overwrite the old files? It doesn't help that I'm one step removed from the users and administrators, so I don't really have any diagnostic information besides people calling me up to say "it's broken". Feh. Python versioning could definitely cause a problem, but in this case everyone is using 2.3.5 (I should have mentioned that). > It would be *much* more sensible to find the underlying cause of the > problems and actually fix them :-) Amen! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
