On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -0.5 from me. For half of the names that the PEP proposes to move most > > users wouldn't be able to guess in which module to find them.
> If they're in *one* (maybe two; we'll see.) other module, it'd be hard to > guess where they are? At the top of the sys docs, we'll put "sys: Generic > Python interpreter services. For CPython specific tools, see the cpython > module" I don't see why people have to be able to "guess" where a given > object is. (It should be reasonably placed, of course.) Yes, it will be hard, because most CPython users have no idea what other Python implementations can or cannot do. E.g. i was surprised to learn that Jython doesn't support a recursion limit, or that frame objects are not universal (in fact I think *you* are mistaken there). OTOH I would guess that "executable" may not be meaningful in Jython, as you'd have to invoke the JVM first. Other examples: I'm not at all sure that all Python implementations should be expected to support tracing and profiling. And I don't get why builtin_module_names can't be universal. Enough examples; I hope my point is clear. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
