On 3/27/09 1:28 AM, Andrew Francis wrote:
Hi Christian:
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Christian Tismer<[email protected]> wrote:
Not to be misunderstood, I really support it and find it
useful. But is there anything about pickling that cannot be
replaced by something else? I think, while being tedious, in principle
it is always possible to emulate this.
Okay pickling is not necessary but I think it makes certain
> problems much easier. Moreover I think Stackless is richer,
> not poorer for having it. I think the issue is to develop the
> idioms for using pickling properly.
I'm not sure if I expressed my point clear enough.
My claim was that it might not be necessary to have pickling.
Given that there is complete enough introspection, then the
pickling could be implemented in user code.
Pickling: Something that enables you to store and restore
internal data structures. It does not have to be built-in.
If you know what to store and how to reproduce it, then any
code that is enough to reproduce state is a pickling.
And no: If python has enough introspection to implement some
pickling in user-code, then it does NOT become richer by built-in
pickling code, because this is an equivalence relation.
It might be faster or better in other ways, but not richer.
It is richer, only if the effect cannot be achieved in another way.
And this exactly was what I questioned.
ciao - 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
