On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:12:57 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > A definitive Python source file could be binary, XML, .py, .ast, > whatever,
Containing *what*? You can't just wave your hands and say "binary". What sort of binary file? Perhaps a JPEG file, where red triangles of different sizes represent keywords. Variable names can be encoded using a pattern of purple dots. Expressions and blocks of code can be formed by joining components with lines. Operators by squares of different colours (green means +, blue means -, etc.). No? Then what? Besides, where does the information inside the file come from? You surely don't expect people to write the binary data/AST/whatever directly. How can the zip file be "definitive" when it is derived from something more fundamental? Source code is, *by definition*, the definitive version. (It's the SOURCE, see?) Zipping the source code just means that the *source* inside the zip file is the definitive version, not the compressed binary data. The AST is not definitive. Human beings write *text*, which is what the source code is. It may be text with an especially restrictive grammar, but it's still text. Everything else -- the parse tree, the abstract syntax tree, the byte code, the machine code, the compressed text, encrypted text, the pixel rendering of the text, ... are derived from the code as written by human beings. Code is written primarily for human beings. Many programmers, and many language designers, don't realise this, which is why so many programs are write-only code. Presentation *is important*, and cannot always be separated from semantics without hurting the primary audience, the human reader. This is what code obfuscators do, deliberately: mangle the presentation while keeping the semantics the same. You're inadvertently proposing the same thing (albeit to a lesser degree). -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
