On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:41:56 -0400 Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 20:27, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:11:14 +0200 > > Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > No, it's not just an existing Python, it is (at least currently) the same > > > version of Python being built. Therefore I wrote about the bootstrapping > > > problems when bytecode changes. > > > > > > Depending on Cython is better in that it breaks the bootstrapping cycle, > > > but on the other hand the C code may need to be regenerated when the C > > API > > > changes in an incompatible way. > > > > Cython OTOH probably needs Python 2.x, which isn't that great for > > building Python 3. And requiring Cython for developing is not very > > contributor-friendly. > > > > Well, required to regenerate _frozen_importlib, but nothing else. I mean > making fixes go into importlib directly and get tested that way, not > through __import__(). So really Cython would only be needed when > importlib._bootstrap has been changed and you are making a commit.
That's still a large dependency to bring in, while we already have a working solution. I'd understand using Cython to develop some new extension module which requires linking against a C library (and is thus impossible to write in pure Python). But for importlib that's totally non-necessary. I guess I'm -1 on it. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
