Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Criticism of execfile() removal in Python3

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 15:11:18 CEST 2014 
On 10 June 2014 23:05, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:07:40 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe it's a space/speed trade-off, so I'd be surprised if it made
>> sense for CPython in general. There are also some behavioural differences
>> when it comes to handling syntax errors.
>>
>> Now that I think about the idea a bit more, if the MicroPython folks can
>> get a low memory usage incremental file execution model working, the
>> semantic differences mean it would likely make the most sense as a separate
>> API in runpy, rather than as an implicit change to run_path.
>
> If it is a separate API, it seems like there's no reason it couldn't be
> contributed back to CPython.  There might be other contexts in which
> low memory would be the right tradeoff.  Although, if key bits end
> up working at the C level, "contributing back" might require writing
> separate C for CPython, so that might not happen.

Yeah, as a separate API it could make sense in CPython - I just didn't
go back and revise the first paragraph after writing the second one :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list