On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. ;) Eh? They provide compatible APIs using different implementations all the time. Really, this is getting exasperating. -- --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
