Oh, the user has to provide it themselves in their 3.x setup, right? On 1/8/14, Richard Tew <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry if I missed this bit, but how does "from __stackless__ import > ..." differ in that polyglot respect? > > On 1/8/14, Martijn Faassen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> On 01/07/2014 04:33 PM, Christian Tismer wrote: >> >>> Yes, that is one possibility, when stackless is only considered as a >>> work-around. >> >> I think that should be a realistic consideration though. It might just >> happen that people come to Stackless only interested in the 2.8 features >> and not in the Stackless features, and it's better to be prepared. >> >>> On the other hand, we might also think of continuing the stackless >>> series >>> on the version 3 line. >>> So when people upgrade from stackless 2.8 to stackless 3.4, the >>> additional >>> futures would be clearly supported ;-) >> >> Sure, but I think it'd be better to aim for maximum compatibility for >> the start. Adding things to __future__ would make it impossible for me >> to write polyglot code that runs on Stackless 2.8 and Python 3.x, and I >> think that's a worthwhile goal. >> >> Regards, >> >> Martijn >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Stackless mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >> >
_______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
