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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #29614 > unrolled thread

Python 3.3 and .pyo files

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Python 3.3 and .pyo files Marco <nameDOTsurname@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 11:10 +0200
    Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-21 12:55 +0000
      Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Marco <nameDOTsurname@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 17:27 +0200
    Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-09-21 22:46 -0400
      Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-22 13:21 +0000
        Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Ramchandra Apte <maniandram01@gmail.com> - 2012-09-22 07:01 -0700
        Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-09-22 18:54 -0400
    Re: Python 3.3 and .pyo files Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-27 02:25 +0000

#29614 — Python 3.3 and .pyo files

I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not 
find it:

$ echo "print(__file__)" > foo.py
$ python3.3 -O -m foo
/home/marco/temp/foo.py
$ ls
foo.py  __pycache__
$ rm foo.py
$ mv __pycache__/foo.cpython-33.pyo foo.pyo
$ rm __pycache__ -r
$ ls
foo.pyo
# The following works in Python3.2, but not in 3.3
$ python3.3 -O -m foo
/usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo

How come? Thanks in advance, Marco

-- 
Marco

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29623

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:10:07 +0200, Marco wrote:

> I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not
> find it:
> 
> $ echo "print(__file__)" > foo.py
> $ python3.3 -O -m foo
> /home/marco/temp/foo.py
> $ ls
> foo.py  __pycache__
> $ rm foo.py
> $ mv __pycache__/foo.cpython-33.pyo foo.pyo 

I cannot duplicate the creation of the foo.cpython-33.pyo file using just 
the -m option. I believe that you created the foo*.pyo file some other 
way. Nevertheless, moving along:


> $ rm __pycache__ -r
> $ ls
> foo.pyo
> # The following works in Python3.2, but not in 3.3 
> $ python3.3 -O -m foo
> /usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo


I can confirm that (1) it works using Python 3.2; (2) it doesn't work 
using Python 3.3; and (3) it does work in Python 3.3 if you don't use the 
-O option.

I believe that is a bug.

(Tested using Python 3.2.2 and Python 3.3.0a1)


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29647

On 09/21/2012 02:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

>> $ ls
>> >foo.pyo
>> ># The following works in Python3.2, but not in 3.3
>> >$ python3.3 -O -m foo
>> >/usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo
>
> I can confirm that (1) it works using Python 3.2; (2) it doesn't work
> using Python 3.3; and (3) it does work in Python 3.3 if you don't use the
> -O option.

It doesn't work with Python 3.3.0rc2 too.

-- 
Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29714

On 9/21/2012 5:10 AM, Marco wrote:
> I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not
> find it:

You appear to be trying to *run*, not *import* a .pyo module.

> $ echo "print(__file__)" > foo.py
> $ python3.3 -O -m foo

Since foo.py is in the current directory, I am not sure why you use '-m 
foo' instead of 'foo.py'. -m is for running a module somewhere on sys.path.


> /home/marco/temp/foo.py
> $ ls
> foo.py  __pycache__
> $ rm foo.py
> $ mv __pycache__/foo.cpython-33.pyo foo.pyo
> $ rm __pycache__ -r
> $ ls
> foo.pyo
> # The following works in Python3.2, but not in 3.3
> $ python3.3 -O -m foo

I would try just 'foo.pyo' in case the -m part is the problem.
Also, the -O is sort of redundant, or perhaps interfering, since its 
usual effect to to say 'get and put, from and to the cache, .pyo instead 
of .pyc'.

> /usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo
>
> How come? Thanks in advance, Marco

You might read some of http://bugs.python.org/issue12982

in particular, from http://bugs.python.org/issue12982#msg162814

"Indeed, since I posted last night, the pydev discussion has moved to 
the question of whether -O, __debug__, and .pyo as now defined are worth 
the nuisance they cause or whether some or all should be deprecated. 
(Docstring stripping for saving space could then be a separate tool.)
---
Python interpreters exist to run Python code. The existence, 
persistence, and other details of compilation caches are 
version-dependent implementation details. Being able to execute from 
such caches without source present is also an implementation detail, and 
for CPython, it gets secondary support at best. (This is a compromise 
between full support and no support.)"

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29750

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:46:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:

> On 9/21/2012 5:10 AM, Marco wrote:
>> I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not
>> find it:
> 
> You appear to be trying to *run*, not *import* a .pyo module.

Marco is using the standard mechanism for finding, importing, and running 
a module. I don't believe his use of -m should be a problem. It works in 
3.2, and it works with .pyc files in 3.3, I see nothing to suggest it 
shouldn't work with .pyo files in 3.3.


>> $ echo "print(__file__)" > foo.py
>> $ python3.3 -O -m foo
> 
> Since foo.py is in the current directory, I am not sure why you use '-m
> foo' instead of 'foo.py'. -m is for running a module somewhere on
> sys.path.

Yes, and the current directory is on sys.path.

I would be astonished if python -m could not find a module that happened 
to be in the current directory.


[...]
> Also, the
> -O is sort of redundant, or perhaps interfering, since its usual effect
> to to say 'get and put, from and to the cache, .pyo instead of .pyc'.

No it is not redundant. You link specifically to an bug tracker issue 
below where is is clearly decided that if you want to run a .pyo file you 
*must* use the -O switch. (I approve of this decision.)


>> /usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo
>>
>> How come? Thanks in advance, Marco
> 
> You might read some of http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
> 
> in particular, from http://bugs.python.org/issue12982#msg162814

Whose words are these following?


> Python interpreters exist to run Python code. The existence,
> persistence, and other details of compilation caches are
> version-dependent implementation details. Being able to execute from
> such caches without source present is also an implementation detail, and
> for CPython, it gets secondary support at best. (This is a compromise
> between full support and no support.)"

I'm not sure if these are your words, or if you are quoting some random 
commenter on the pydev list, or one of the lead developers who might 
actually know what he is talking about.

As I recall, some time in the recent past Guido came down *hard* against 
the suggestion that support for running sourceless files (.pyc and .pyo) 
should be dropped. Even if I'm misremembering, it is the case that the 
Python 3.3 will find and run a .pyc file, but not a .pyo file. There's a 
new candidate release of 3.3 due out over the next couple of days. If it 
shows the same behaviour, it should be reported as a bug.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29752

On Saturday, 22 September 2012 18:51:01 UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:46:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On 9/21/2012 5:10 AM, Marco wrote:
> 
> >> I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not
> 
> >> find it:
> 
> > 
> 
> > You appear to be trying to *run*, not *import* a .pyo module.
> 
> 
> 
> Marco is using the standard mechanism for finding, importing, and running 
> 
> a module. I don't believe his use of -m should be a problem. It works in 
> 
> 3.2, and it works with .pyc files in 3.3, I see nothing to suggest it 
> 
> shouldn't work with .pyo files in 3.3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> $ echo "print(__file__)" > foo.py
> 
> >> $ python3.3 -O -m foo
> 
> > 
> 
> > Since foo.py is in the current directory, I am not sure why you use '-m
> 
> > foo' instead of 'foo.py'. -m is for running a module somewhere on
> 
> > sys.path.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the current directory is on sys.path.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be astonished if python -m could not find a module that happened 
> 
> to be in the current directory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Also, the
> 
> > -O is sort of redundant, or perhaps interfering, since its usual effect
> 
> > to to say 'get and put, from and to the cache, .pyo instead of .pyc'.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not redundant. You link specifically to an bug tracker issue 
> 
> below where is is clearly decided that if you want to run a .pyo file you 
> 
> *must* use the -O switch. (I approve of this decision.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> /usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo
> 
> >>
> 
> >> How come? Thanks in advance, Marco
> 
> > 
> 
> > You might read some of http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
> 
> > 
> 
> > in particular, from http://bugs.python.org/issue12982#msg162814
> 
> 
> 
> Whose words are these following?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Python interpreters exist to run Python code. The existence,
> 
> > persistence, and other details of compilation caches are
> 
> > version-dependent implementation details. Being able to execute from
> 
> > such caches without source present is also an implementation detail, and
> 
> > for CPython, it gets secondary support at best. (This is a compromise
> 
> > between full support and no support.)"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if these are your words, or if you are quoting some random 
> 
> commenter on the pydev list, or one of the lead developers who might 
> 
> actually know what he is talking about.
It is Terry J. Reedy's words - see end of http://bugs.python.org/issue12982#msg162814 
 
 
> As I recall, some time in the recent past Guido came down *hard* against 
> 
> the suggestion that support for running sourceless files (.pyc and .pyo) 
> 
> should be dropped. Even if I'm misremembering, it is the case that the 
> 
> Python 3.3 will find and run a .pyc file, but not a .pyo file. There's a 
> 
> new candidate release of 3.3 due out over the next couple of days. If it 
> 
> shows the same behaviour, it should be reported as a bug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29768

On 9/22/2012 9:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:46:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2012 5:10 AM, Marco wrote:
>>> I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not
>>> find it:
>>
>> You appear to be trying to *run*, not *import* a .pyo module.
>
> Marco is using the standard mechanism for finding, importing, and running
> a module. I don't believe his use of -m should be a problem. It works in
> 3.2, and it works with .pyc files in 3.3, I see nothing to suggest it
> shouldn't work with .pyo files in 3.3.
>
>
>>> $ echo "print(__file__)" > foo.py
>>> $ python3.3 -O -m foo
>>
>> Since foo.py is in the current directory, I am not sure why you use '-m
>> foo' instead of 'foo.py'. -m is for running a module somewhere on
>> sys.path.
>
> Yes, and the current directory is on sys.path.
>
> I would be astonished if python -m could not find a module that happened
> to be in the current directory.
>
>
> [...]
>> Also, the
>> -O is sort of redundant, or perhaps interfering, since its usual effect
>> to to say 'get and put, from and to the cache, .pyo instead of .pyc'.
>
> No it is not redundant. You link specifically to an bug tracker issue
> below where is is clearly decided that if you want to run a .pyo file you
> *must* use the -O switch. (I approve of this decision.)
>
>
>>> /usr/local/bin/python3.3: No module named foo
>>>
>>> How come? Thanks in advance, Marco
>>
>> You might read some of http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
>>
>> in particular, from http://bugs.python.org/issue12982#msg162814
>
> Whose words are these following?
>
>
>> Python interpreters exist to run Python code. The existence,
>> persistence, and other details of compilation caches are
>> version-dependent implementation details. Being able to execute from
>> such caches without source present is also an implementation detail, and
>> for CPython, it gets secondary support at best. (This is a compromise
>> between full support and no support.)"
>
> I'm not sure if these are your words, or if you are quoting some random
> commenter on the pydev list, or one of the lead developers who might
> actually know what he is talking about.

My words summarizing the discussion on pydev which included at least a 
few lead developers. My initial post was probably 6/12/2012


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30270

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:10:07 +0200, Marco wrote:

> I was trying to import a pyo module in Python 3.3, but Python does not
> find it:
[...]

Marco, this bug is apparently now fixed:

http://bugs.python.org/issue16046

Please download the latest version of Python 3.3 and try again.

(Folks, this is why testing and reporting bugs to beta and rc versions is 
so useful. You can often get them fixed quite quickly.)



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web