GeezerVison

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:46:50 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:20:24 -0700
> > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, but you didn't answer the question :).  If I understand
> correctly,
> > > > everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading
> it.
> > > >
> > > > So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all that
> is
> > > > around) when -O is not specified?
> > > >
> > > > The only technical reason I can see why -O should be required for a
> .pyo
> > > > file to be used (*if* it is the only thing around) is if it won't
> *run*
> > > > without the -O switch.  Is there any expectation that that will ever
> be
> > > > the case?
> > > >
> > > Yes.  For instance, if I create a .pyo with -OO it wouldn't have
> docstrings.
> > > Another piece of code can legally import that and try to use the
> docstring
> > > for something.  This would fail if only the .pyo was present.
> >
> > Not only docstrings, but also asserts. I think running a pyo without -O
> > would be a bug.
>
> Again, a program that depends on asserts is buggy.
>
> As Ethan pointed out we are asking about the case where someone is
> *deliberately* setting the .pyo file up to be run as the "normal"
> case.
>
> I'm not sure we want to support that, I just want us to be clear
> about why we don't :)


PyPy toolchain is an example of such buggy program. And oh any tests. I
would not be impressed if my python read .pyo files out of nowhere when not
running with -O flag (I'm trying very hard to never run python with -O,
because it's different python after all)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120614/60e3319b/attachment.html>