«

Well, Python (as 3.2) has never reached this level of excellence, but
__pycache__, no, not for me.

(I feel better now, after I wrote it.)

jmfauth, 01.03.2011 11:40:
> __pycache__, no, not for me.

This has been discussed before. The 'argument' you presented is usually due
to a misunderstanding of how __pycache__ works. Consider reading the PEP.

Stefan

jmfauth wrote:
> Well, Python (as 3.2) has never reached this level of excellence, but
> __pycache__, no, not for me.
>
> (I feel better now, after I wrote it.)

Could you be more specific?

--
Tom Zych /
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.