GeezerVison

> [Skip]
> > In the face of exec statements or calls to execfile can't the
> > compiler just generate the usual LOAD_NAME fallback instead of the new-
> > fangled LOAD_GLOBAL opcode?

[Tim]
> Note that exec doesn't have to be passed a string: you can pass it a
> compiled code object just as well.  The compiler can't guess how a
> code object will be used at the time it's compiled.  In theory there
> would be nothing to stop exec from rewriting the bytecode in a
> compiled code object passed to it, but I doubt we could get Guido to
> buy that trick until he first buys rewriting bytecode to set
> debugger breakpoints <wink>.

Arg.  So much for that idea.  (Although I think the mutable bytecode
idea *is* the right idea for setting breakpoints after all.)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)