[Python-Dev] Fwd: Request for Pronouncement: PEP 441 - Improving Python ZIP Application Support

2015年2月24日 11:10:11 -0800

[Sorry, accidentally dropped the list from this message.]
Here's my review. I really like where this is going but I have a few
questions and suggestions (I can't help myself :-).
[I sneaked a peek at the update you sent to [email protected].]
"Currently, pyyzer [5] and pex [6] are two tools known to exist." -> "...
are two such tools."
It's not stated whether the archive names include the .pyz[w] extension or
not (though I'm guessing it's not -- this should be stated).
The naming of the functions feels inconsistent -- maybe pack(directory,
target) -> create_archive(directory, archive), and set_interpreter() ->
copy_archive(archive, new_archive)?
Why no command-line equivalent for the other two methods? I propose the
following interface: if there's only one positional argument, we're asking
to print its shebang line; if there are two and the input position is an
archive instead of a directory, we're copying. (In the future people will
want an option to print more stuff, e.g. the main function or even a full
listing.)
I've not seen the pkg.mod:fn notation before. Where is this taken from?
Why can't it be pkg.mod.fn?
I'd specify that when the output argument is a file open for writing, it is
the caller's responsibility to close the file. Also, can the file be a
pipe? (I.e. are we using seek()/tell() or not?) And what about the input
archive? Can that be a file open for reading?
-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to