On 3/27/09 3:11 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
Btw, branching off at an angle:
I noticed that much of the pickling support in Stackless is about providing
pickling for regular built-in types.
Stuff like iterators, for example. I was surprised at how much of the pickling
support is for non-stackless kind of things.
In my opinion, these really should be picklable without stackless support. Any
thoughts?
I'm at PyCon and I could possibly sell the idea to migrate some of the tasklet
pickling over to vanilla Python.
I think I asked once, but the need to pickle things like
iterators was not so evident to - was it Guido?
Actually, you are right. Why should things not be picklable, if it
is possible with not so many headaches.
I agree that prickling frames is not that obvious how to do,
and the Stackless way is also a bit specific.
But even if frames would not be re-runnable, pickling makes
sense for diagnostics. Allow a traceback to be pickled
and diagnosed on a different machine.
great idea, please try!
cheers - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]>
tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
