On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:32:34 -0400 > Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The reason why there was no mention is probably because no one >> intimately familiar with Cython was there, and if they were - it was >> not brought up. If Cython supports PyPy - and Jython, and IronPython, >> your proposal makes sense. The reason for "pure" python implementation >> is so that other implementations can share the exact same standard >> library we have today. > > Well, realistically, they don't. Some functionality just isn't > satisfied with a slow Python implementation. The io module is a primary > example of that. > (but I don't think a Cython version of io would be fast enough, either) > > Regards > > Antoine.
The intention (and pep that is in progress) is to break out the standard library so that it *is* shared, and used by all of the implementations. We should not go out of our way to make this difficult, and provide pure python implementation whenever we can. This was universally agreed to at the summit at least, and I believe Brett Cannon is going to work on a pep that solidifies it. The other implementations (PyPy, in particular) have run into serious issues with the optimized C versions of modules being placed into the core, and the Python fallbacks being torn out. jesse _______________________________________________ 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
