> so you're saying that the set of people that can deal with
> no more than one
> file at a time but knows how to install and configure Python
> (which in itself
> comes with a few thousand files) is larger than zero?
Take me as an example: Very often, I needed software that could solve a
specific
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Joerg Schuster wrote:
> #!/usr/bin/env python
> import app
Yes, of course this is a possibility. But it implies having (or giving
away) two files.
yeah, think of all the disk space you'll waste!
Because if you have two files, you need a third one: a README
that tells you what
On 2005-04-27, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so you're saying that the set of people that can deal with no
> more than one file at a time but knows how to install and
> configure Python (which in itself comes with a few thousand
> files) is larger than zero?
There are a lot of Linux
Joerg Schuster wrote:
> #!/usr/bin/env python
> import app
Yes, of course this is a possibility. But it implies having (or giving
away) two files.
yeah, think of all the disk space you'll waste!
Because if you have two files, you need a third one: a README
that tells you what to do with the two fil
I just happened across the page linked to below, and remembered this
thread, and, well... here you go:
http://www.lyra.org/greg/python/
Executable .pyc files
Ever wanted to drop a .pyc file right into your web server's
cgi-bin directory? Frustrated because the OS doesn't know what to do
with
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:37:11 -0400, Michael Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2005 18:15:51 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there some reason why you want to run the .pyc file, rather than the
.py file? If you start the script with
a. It's more efficient, since the
> #!/usr/bin/env python
> import app
Yes, of course this is a possibility. But it implies having (or giving
away) two files.
I think having one file is always better than having two files. Because
if you have two files, you need a third one: a README that tells you
what to do with the two files a
Michael Soulier wrote:
> Is there some reason why you want to run the .pyc file, rather than the
> .py file? If you start the script with
a. It's more efficient, since the code doesn't need to be compiled
before it's run.
b. What if you want to ship closed-source?
#!/usr/bin/env python
import
On 26 Apr 2005 18:15:51 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there some reason why you want to run the .pyc file, rather than the
> .py file? If you start the script with
a. It's more efficient, since the code doesn't need to be compiled
before it's run.
b. What if you want to
Is there some reason why you want to run the .pyc file, rather than the
.py file? If you start the script with
#! /usr/bin/env python
Then if the file has the execution permission set, typing the file name
(foo.py) will make the script call up the Python interpreter on its
own.
--
http://mail.p
On 26 Apr 2005 08:19:43 -0700, Joerg Schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
is there a way to compile a python file foo.py to foo.pyc (or foo.pyo)
such that foo.pyc can be run with 'foo.pyc' (as opposed to 'python
foo.pyc') on the command line?
No. However, on Linux, read up on /proc/sys/fs/b
Hello,
is there a way to compile a python file foo.py to foo.pyc (or foo.pyo)
such that foo.pyc can be run with 'foo.pyc' (as opposed to 'python
foo.pyc') on the command line?
Jörg Schuster
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
12 matches
Mail list logo
