Hi Amaury, On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we should retry with different pypy trees (i.e pypy/interpreter/ vs. > pypy3k/interpreter/, and so on) > But I'm sure we would like some objects to be compatible, for > example PyFrame2.f_backref could be a PyFrame3.
Not necessarily. At least not if the API presented to the user is that of a foreign function invocation library. We'd start with a no-sharing model and focus on enabling some data exchanges beyond the minimal "foreign data" boxes in both directions. A bientôt, Armin. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
