dismantling code objects

[Dean Hall]

Martin von Loewis <loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote in message news:<j4r8sva15k.fsf at informatik.hu-berlin.de>...
> dean.hall at computer.org (Dean Hall) writes:
> 
> > I'd appreciate any feedback on the doc (I consider it a rough draft
> > and won't be offended by constructive criticism).
> 
> I find your text well-written, and I'd encourage you to keep it
> up-to-date (e.g. Python 2.2 will add a few byte codes).
> 
> I think the type setting could use some improvements, e.g. the figure
> numbers are never printed, and the tables with empty fields look ugly
> (e.g. opcodes 93,94).

Thank you for the feedback.  My rough draft is in HTML and I plan to
migrate to TeX, which will solve some of the typesetting and
numbering.  I thought the empty byte code cells would lead people to
think that I hadn't documented that byte code... I guess I'll insert
"UNUSED" or the like.

> I'd spend a few more words on marshal, so that the reader atleast gets
> an idea of what it does - you may leave out the information of how
> exactly it does that(*).

You mean I should spend a few more words than zero? <smiley>
In my grand plan, the subjects of .pyc and marshal would be another
doc.  And byte codes and the interpreter would be a third doc.

!!Dean