In a message of Sun, 06 May 2012 21:29:12 +0200, Armin Rigo writes: >The reason for that: getting details "right" might be similar to the >sys module's documentation, which has grown a number of "CPython >implementation detail" boxes --- which are rather meaningless for >PyPy, in the sense that the set of functions that are dubbed "CPython >implementation detail" and the set of functions that PyPy cannot >reasonably implement have little to do with each other.
I think a large part of this problem is that CPython implementors are completely unaware of what set of functions PyPy cannot implement. And I don't blame them for that. I am often in the same way. I talk to somebody who wants to make CPython do X, and he wants to know if PyPy will have a problem with this. I cautiously reply 'not as he has outlined the problem'. 3 weeks later, he comes back with working code. And I say -- Eeek! we cannot do this, that and the other thing, and by the way we have a much more efficient way to do this thing over there. He quite reasonably asks me 'why didn't you tell me this in the first place?' and I also reasonably reply 'I had no idea that you planned this particular implementation when you asked.' Is there a place in this PEP for 'known differences in implementations' a.k.a. 'we know this is incompatible but we aren't going to change our implementation to fix'?? It might save a lot of trouble. Laura _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
