Hi there, On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:18 PM, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > After all, this is only an intermediate solution until > everthing happily runs on Python3 anyway, right? ;)
Well, I'm more thinking about it as a means to get to such a situation, not as an intermediate solution. If you have an integrated Python 2 and Python 3 in a single project you can decide to port code to Python 3 on a per-module basis instead of on a per-project basis. So I'm not any immediate need to run Python 3 libraries that I need to solve. Deciding to do so for existing projects at this point would cause quite a lot more hassle than I'm looking for. This is helping to retard Python 3 adoption, as only new projects can start using it. Concerning performance overhead of proxies, lifecycle issues would be tricky, though starting with the basic notion that a proxy is like another reference to that object in the interpreter would get you quite far, I think? I do suspect a proxy approach could be made to be very efficient. I don't know enough about execnet in practice to know how it would feel. It'd be nice if this were a documented way to integrate different interpreters. Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
