On 1/6/14 3:51 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
On 07.01.14 02:23, Richard Tew wrote:
No, I just want to be clear on what everyone expects to get out of it.
For me, as I understand it, it's 2.x with whatever whomever wishes to
backport from 3.x, included. Therefore, to some degree it would also
serve (with no extra work than any of us plans) as an intermediate
point that lessens effort in migrating to 3.x by being somewhere in
between.
I think that renaming the executable is what you should do. People
can alias to 'python' as they please.
Very much agreed!
That is what I'm going to do consequently,
and quite probably this is the best to do in the future, too!
But let us try it with 2.8 first. If people like what they get, then we
should
consider to extend the renaming.
all the best -- Chris
Hi
if stackless 2.8 serves as a melting pot for new ideas and
implementations and aggregates what's out there, it's a win for me.
I like the idea of not having to write my own process management system
to reap the benefits of multicore architectures with ease and I also
like to have the light weight multiprocessing with tasklets and
channels, which was way back then what fascinated me about massive MP in
simulations done with OCCAM and the transputer architecture from INMOS.
All in all, I like stackless and where its going a lot and it feels good
to see that there is a future for the 2.x series, which not only holds
grunt work porting old stuff forward to three series pythons, not
leaving any time to implement new ideas and concepts.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
