> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:stackless- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Martijn Faassen > Sent: 8. janúar 2014 12:48 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Stackless] __future__ policy > > On 01/08/2014 12:36 PM, Christian Tismer wrote: > > Yep. For me, it seems to be cleanest/simplest for now to extend > > __future__, and make a matching stackless 3.x that adds exactly those as > no-ops. > > I'll shut up about it after this post, but I'll try one more time. > > I really think you're making a big mistake. > > You're going for a superficial cleanliness that actually creates all kinds of > ugliness: a political debate on python-dev about this, *or* semi-auto- > conversion that makes polyglot code impossible.
I'm getting to see Martijn's point. So, how about this: We make __slpfuture__ a synonym for __future__ in 2.8. We add "nonlocal" and "yield_from" arguments. We then provide a __slpfuture__.py module with those things defined. If we then manage to convince cpython that they should add no-op support for our 2.8-slp things, that's great! Otherwise, we can just stick with using __slpfuture__. K _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
