On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 7:56 PM Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
> > On Tue., May 25, 2021, 12:58 Guido van Rossum, <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >> [...] >> Or do you think the "Standards Track" PEP should just codify general >> agreement that we're going to implement a specializing adaptive >> interpreter, with the level of detail that's currently in the PEP? >> > > This. Having this as an informational PEP that's already marked as Active > seems off somehow to me. I guess it feels more "we're doing this" (which I > know isn't intended) rather than "this is our plan, what do you all think? > All good?" > Right. I have no power to unilaterally decide that "we're doing this", in the sense of "we're definitely merging this", and neither do Eric and Mark. But given the reactions during and since the Language Summit I had assumed that there isn't much dissent, so that "it's okay to try this" seems a reasonable conclusion. And given *that*, I'm not sure that there's much of a difference between the two positions. But I'm not trying to stifle discussion, and there is plenty of work that we (the three authors) can do before we're at the point of no return. (In fact, even if we were to get called back, all we'd need to do would be to revert some commits -- this has happened before.) > I don't recall other standards track PEPs that don't also spell out the >> specification of the proposal in detail. >> > > I also am not aware of a PEP that's proposed restructuring the eval loop > like this either. 😉 > Right. Usually we just discuss ideas to improve the eval loop on bpo or in PRs, occasionally on python-dev, but not in PEPs. Over the years the eval loop has become quite a bit more efficient than the loop I wrote three decades ago, but also much more complex, and there's less and less low-hanging fruit left. In the end the proposal here could make it easier to reason about the performance of the eval loop, because there will be fewer one-off hacks, and instead a more systematic approach. > I'm personally fine with the detail and saying details may shift as things > move forward and lessons are learned based on the scope and updating the > PEP accordingly. But that's just me and I don't know if others agree (hence > the reason I'm suggesting this be Standards Track). > Sure. Do you have a specific text change in mind (or even just a suggestion about where we should insert some language about details shifting and learning lessons? Are there other things you'd like to see changed in the PEP? Also, can you outline a specific process that you would be comfortable with here, given that we're breaking a certain amount of new ground here process-wise? Or should we just change the PEP type to Standards Track and submit it to the Steering Council for review? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XJ562DTRNBCMAUUERVWQPAJDUS3JWLFK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
