PEP 304 - is anyone really interested?

[Patrick Maupin]

Thomas Heller wrote:

> Although I was not interested originally, I think that's
> a use case I also have.  Optional config files, which
> should not be compiled to .pyc or .pyo.  Only removing
> the .py file doesn't have the expected effect
> if a .pyc and/or .pyo if is left.


I also think that if nobody has the same use-case as envisioned by the
original PEP, we should probably step back and rethink how it should be
implemented.  The original PEP envisioned the installation of
third-party .py file libraries without their corresponding .pyc files
into directories for which the eventual script user had no
write-access.  As more people become coginzant of the correct way to
install Python libraries, I think this use-case fades in importance.

The key distinction between this older use-case and the currently
envisioned use-case is that the former assumes third-party code, and
the latter assumes that the control over .pyc generation is desired by
the _author_ of some python code, rather than merely the _installer_ of
some python code.  In this latter case, environment variables are not
strictly necessary, because the top-level script could do whatever it
needs to control .pyc generation, from inside Python itself.

> AFAIK, it is not possible to define empty env vars on Windows.

You make a good point about null environment variables.  I think the
original PEP was fairly *nix-centric, both in that aspect, and in the
aspect of requiring the value of bytecodebase to be the "root" of the
file system.  This might not have the desired results in all cases on
Windows.

Regards,
Pat