Michael Foord wrote: > Why not just sys.implementation as a string? Everything else can > trivially be deduced from that anyway. What is the use-case for the > extra information?
I think Christian's set of required attributes is much too large (I would only have "name" as a required field), but I can understand the desire to use a structure rather than a simple string. As with sys.float_info, it gives a new namespace to store "info about the implementation" without throwing more and more stuff into the main sys namespace. So it might start with just "name" being compulsory (since people can use lower() to iron out any capitalisation issues), but allow implementation specific attributes to migrate from the sys module to the implementation namespace. So "url" might become a common attribute, with each implementation providing a pointer to their homepage. CPython might decide to put our eventual Hg based replacement for sys.subversion under sys.implementation instead of at the module level, etc. A designated location for "put your implementation specific attributes here" inside the sys module is a lot less hassle than creating a whole new module for the purpose, but gives most of the same benefits. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
