On 2020-01-07 19:23, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 1:18 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 1:00 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 16. 12. 19 16:56, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> For what it's worth. I think %pycached is a nice improvement. I'm
>>> sure if I like the name of it specifically, but the behavior is quite
>> Naming things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>> I was thinking:
>> %with_pycache - collides with bconds
>> %include_pycache - quite long
>> %pyc - quite indecipherable
>> %pycache - might be mistaken to only include the pyc files
>> %pycached doesn't sound that bad to me - include that file, but also its
>> Python bytecode. However I am not a native speaker and I realize I often
>> desecrate the English language. Got any better suggestions?
> %pyfile is probably quite enough for that. It looks and feels like a
> marker instead of something strange, and the underlying behavior is
> somewhat immaterial.
I support this incremental improvement.
I agree with Neal here. %pyfile is probably the best/simplest option.
It will read best too, as it basically says "Deploy the functionality
of this python file in the appropriate manner". The implementation can
then be adjusted as needed.
While "Deploy the functionality of this python file in the appropriate
manner" would be great, it would need to guess too much. The filename
doesn't have enough info.
%pycached's very limited scope is a feature. It should be a reliable
tool that you can use manually, or later as part of a more complex system.
As for the name, I hope y'all don't mind that we skipped the
bikeshedding and went with %pycached after considering the alternatives