On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Benjamin Peterson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Another thought: Even if other > > implementations provide these > > functions, it doesn't really mean they are compatible. Allowing each > > implementation to have their own interpreter module can clear up > > confusion regarding how much they support what is returned. > > That's not the Python spirit. The spirit is that *if* they support > similar enough functionality the APIs should be named the same, in the > same module, and have the same signature. E.g. the os module is built > on this principle. Many APIs there are optional, but if they exist, > they have a known name and spec. (The posix/nt underlying modules are > implementation details that most users never need to know about.) You can't expect people to write the same implementation as you, though. Take an implementation (imaginary for the moment) that has a frame-like object, but is barred from exposing it because it doesn't have the same API as the CPython one. You could argue too that exposing an internal object with the ugly name _getframe is hardly pythonic to begin with. ;) > > -- > > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) >
-- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson _______________________________________________ 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
