Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> Martin> It took some effort to integrate this for 2.3, so I feel sad >> Martin> that this is now all ripped out again. I'm not certain the code >> Martin> gets cleaner that way - just smaller. >> >> Well, fewer #ifdefs can't be a bad thing. > > By that principle, it would be best if Python supported only a single > platform - I would chose Linux (that would also save me creating > Windows binaries :-) > > Fewer ifdefs are a bad thing if they also go along with fewer > functionality, or worse portability. As I said, people contributed their > time to write this code (in this case, it took me several hours of work, > to understand and adjust the patch being contributed), and I do find > it bad, in principle, that this work is now all declared wasted.
I wonder how hard it would be - and how much it would distort the Python code base - if most if not all platform-specific differences could be externalized from the core Python source code. Ideally, a platform wishing to support Python shouldn't have to be part of the core Python distribution, and a "port" of Python should consist of the concatenation of two packages, the universal Python sources, and a set of platform-specific adapters, which may or may not be hosted on the main Python site. However, this just might be wishful thinking on my part... -- Talin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
