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

From	Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Subject	Re: py_compile vs. built-in compile, with __future__
Date	2013-06-12 13:30 +0000
Organization	Norwich University
Message-ID	<b1rbg3Fmmi9U2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <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> <3391a098-22e1-4d8b-a360-939fb4e77b74@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2013-06-11, dhyams <dhyams@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

Dang. Sorry for the misinfo.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous 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