On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Jun 01, 2012, at 11:49 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>The long term goal here is that all the code in the standard library >>should be implementation independent - PyPy, Jython, IronPython, et al >>should be able to grab it and just run it. That means the >>implementation specific stuff needs to migrate into the C code and get >>exposed through standard APIs. PEP 421 is one step along that road. > > Exactly. Or to put it another way, if you implemented sys.implementation in > some stdlib Python module, you wouldn't be able to share that module between > the various Python implementations. I think the stdlib should strive for > *more* commonality across Python implementations, not less. Yes, you could > conditionalize your way around that, but why do it when writing the code in > the interpreter implementation language is easy enough? Plus, who wants to > maintain the ugly mass of if-statements that would probably require?
Not only that, but any new/experimental/etc. implementation would either have be blessed in that module by Python committers (a la the platform module*) or would have to use a fork of the standard library. * I don't mean to put down the platform module, with has and will continue to serve us well. Rather, just pointing out that a small part of it demonstrates a limitation in the stdlib relative to alternate implementations. > > Eric's C code is easily auditable to anyone who knows the C API well enough, > and I can't imagine it wouldn't be pretty trivial to write it in Java, > RPython, or C#. And I'm by no means a C veteran. :) -eric _______________________________________________ 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
