[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Georg Brandl added the comment: Committed r59824. -- status: open -> closed Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Guido van Rossum added the comment: PS the patch still has a problem: Python/pythonrun.c:177: error: ‘Py_ReadOnlyBytecodeFlag’ undeclared (first use in this function) Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Guido van Rossum added the comment: Looks good, please commit! (Christian: the problem with using PYC in the envar name is that it is ambiguous about what happens to PYO files...) -- resolution: -> accepted Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Georg Brandl added the comment: Attaching new diff, with -B flag name, PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE, and sys.dont_write_bytecode. Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9079/no-pyc-flag.diff Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Changes by Skip Montanaro: -- nosy: -skip.montanaro Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: ht

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Christian Heimes added the comment: What do you think about PYTHONOMITPYC, --omit-pyc and sys.omit_pyc_creation? Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Georg Brandl added the comment: Does the flag name -R still make sense with the new env var name? Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Python-bugs

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Guido van Rossum added the comment: "dont" is a pretty common contraction (see e.g. telnet.py). Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Python-bugs-l

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Brett Cannon added the comment: For some reason I don't love the use of "dont", with the missing apostrophe. Just looks ugly to me. But I don't know if "donot" is that much better. And I don't think "PYTHONSKIPWRITINGBYTECODE" is much better. In other words, I wish there was a better optio

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Guido van Rossum added the comment: I'm okay with this feature, and the patch looks fine, except I don't like the names used. It's not really about "read-only-ness" of bytecode, it's about whether we write certain files. I'd suggest naming the envvar PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE, the C flag variable

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Christian Heimes added the comment: Should the read only option be considered for 2.6? -- nosy: +tiran versions: +Python 2.6 Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Georg Brandl added the comment: Since the PEP is now withdrawn, I updated Neal's patch to the trunk and added the env variable as well as the sys module value, including documentation. -- priority: low -> normal Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file8567/no-pyc-flag.diff __

[issue602345] option for not writing .py[co] files

Tom Tanner added the comment: Is there likely to be any action on this. We can get issues with the creation of .pyc files due to our build setup. We can get situations where we run builds in parallel on 2 different architectures. Our build is set up so that anything generated by compilers end up