Richard, you get me into serious trouble.
But don't misunderstand me - I like that!
I think to realize that there is some serious fear of a
Stackless Python 2.8
version.
I also can follow the reasoning against it.
What may be a show-stopper is the "do not combine python and 2.8"
issue, as there is meanwhile a licensing issue.
I don's intend to create a war. Stackless is known enough that we can do a
"Stackless 2.8" by it alone. People will know what it is.
But I don't have real reasone here. I am even happy with this new approach
from Chris Barker:
- create a CPython executable, with a different DLL name,
- create a SPython executable, with a different DLL name.
The "SPython" branch would create it's Stackless 2.8 or whatever you
propose.
The "CPython" branch would create it's CPython 2.7.X branch, heck, without
any additions.
The idea is to create them both, at the same time.
These two different Python's are then installed, and people can run either
cpython or spython, within the same install.
It will not clash with any existing Python. It will be explicit, it will
come with
lots of installable extensions, and it will be there, next week.
What do you thing - would that work as you intended?
cheers -- Chris
On 21.11.13 22:08, Richard Tew wrote:
I find it hard to take that thread seriously.
There's the usual crowd that are firmly against a continued 2.x. I
see their names and their hardline attitude every time some
conversation like this comes up.
Then there are the people that cling to tenuous claims, in order to
push against it.
Suddenly, Stackless Python is confusing? After 12 years? Never have
I encountered someone install Stackless Python and think they were
installing normal Python.
And the trademark threats? What?! More nonsense.
I simply don't see the problem here. No reasonable person is going to
get confused, unless we approach it in a way where we plan to
intentionally make them so - which we don't.
Let's move forward with this. You're never going to make the list
happy. The people who always chime in with 3.x is the way forward,
and 2.x is dead, will never be satisfied.
Better to enjoy making positive progress, than wallow in their negativity.
Cheers,
Richard.
On 11/21/13, Christian Tismer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi friends,
I made the attempt to get approval on stackless python 2.8, and
it seems to open a discussion.
PEP 404 is the funny named pep that declares python 2.7 as the
end of the 2.x series.
But to get a VS 2010 build, some rule must be changed. If VS 2010
is an improvement, it cannot get in. If it is a bug fix, it can.
They seem to definately dislike 2.8.
Can you please chime in on the python-dev thread
"PEP 0404 and VS 2010"
? I need help with this to get to a conclusion.
cheers - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
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
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
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
