Message 245487 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	ncoghlan
Recipients	gvanrossum, larry, ncoghlan, yselivanov
Date	2015-06-19.04:47:32
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1434689253.89.0.431597909643.issue24468@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
As part of the PEP 492 implementation, Yury has needed to hardcode compile flag contants in various places, with adjacent comments explaining what the magic numbers mean. It occurred to me that there's a way we could make those constants readily available to any code manipulating code objects: expose them as read-only attributes via the code object type. Does this seem like a reasonable idea? If yes, would it be reasonable to classify it as part of the PEP 492 implementation process and include it during the 3.5 beta cycle?

As part of the PEP 492 implementation, Yury has needed to hardcode compile flag contants in various places, with adjacent comments explaining what the magic numbers mean.

It occurred to me that there's a way we could make those constants readily available to any code manipulating code objects: expose them as read-only attributes via the code object type.

Does this seem like a reasonable idea?

If yes, would it be reasonable to classify it as part of the PEP 492 implementation process and include it during the 3.5 beta cycle?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2015-06-19 04:47:34	ncoghlan	set	recipients: + ncoghlan, gvanrossum, larry, yselivanov
2015-06-19 04:47:33	ncoghlan	set	messageid: <1434689253.89.0.431597909643.issue24468@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-06-19 04:47:33	ncoghlan	link	issue24468 messages
2015-06-19 04:47:32	ncoghlan	create