On 11/18/2011 6:57 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 18 November 2011 08:31, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Am 15.11.2011 23:53, schrieb Michael Foord: > Whilst we're considering new classifiers - any word on this one? I lost track: what't the proposal, and what's the consensus? Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: CPython Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: PyPy Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: Jython Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: IronPython Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: Stackless There seemed to be agreement that classifiers for the different implementations was useful. M-A Lemburg suggested adding versions *as well*. Jean-Paul Calderone and I thought it was unnecessary as Jython and IronPython are now using CPython version numbers and different versions of all the implementations tend to target a specific Python language version - for which we already have classifiers. M-A Lemburg disliked the the "Implementation" part of the classifier (he was only -0 on it though). I think it is useful/necessary to have it to disambiguate these implementations from other Python-like-languages (like Cython and Shedskin) that can be used to write Python extensions.
For the purpose of searching, I cannot see how adding 'implementation' helps much -- unless there are a lot of other 3rd and 4th level classifiers that I do not know about. So I am - or + depending on the context.
As I understand them, Shedskin compiles a subset and Cython a superset of Python.
(As a matter of correctness all of these implementations provide "the Python programming language" and strive very hard indeed not to be distinct programming languages...)
-- Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
