Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #47704

Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__

X-Received by 10.224.200.202 with SMTP id ex10mr11738413qab.8.1370985935798; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received by 10.49.39.196 with SMTP id r4mr951421qek.8.1370985935781; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!ch1no4098727qab.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni1724qax.0!nntp.google.com!ch1no4098723qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To <b1ouhdF70r8U1@mid.individual.net>
Complaints-To groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.111.68.75; posting-account=JmeKMgoAAABECkkccvjSCwzIdz7Y_ZwK
NNTP-Posting-Host 192.111.68.75
References <0bfe7bee-3df2-4fb8-8aad-c2124792b8b6@googlegroups.com> <mailman.2987.1370897988.3114.python-list@python.org> <a0902635-60ca-4c93-a296-88f1740ac8fe@googlegroups.com> <mailman.2990.1370903766.3114.python-list@python.org> <e0a8943b-d851-491d-ad88-5fe1c7241e09@googlegroups.com> <b1ouhdF70r8U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent G2/1.0
MIME-Version 1.0
Message-ID <3391a098-22e1-4d8b-a360-939fb4e77b74@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__
From dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com>
Injection-Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:25:35 +0000
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.python:47704

Show key headers only | View raw

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:37:17 AM UTC-4, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2013-06-10, dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, June 10, 2013 6:36:04 PM UTC-4, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> >> Can you read the file into a string, prepend a future directive, and
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> then compile the string?
> 
> >
> 
> > Technically yes, except that now there is complication of
> 
> > writing the modified module back to a file so that I can still
> 
> > use py_compile.compile() to byte compile that code.
> 
> 
> 
> You would use StringIO instead of writing a temp file.
> 

I don't think that would work...py_compile takes a filename as input, not a file object.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 08:33 -0700
  Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-06-10 16:59 -0400
    Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 15:27 -0700
      Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-11 08:36 +1000
        Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 16:31 -0700
          Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-06-11 15:37 +0000
            Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com> - 2013-06-11 14:25 -0700
              Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__ Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-06-12 13:30 +0000

csiph-web