On 6/21/2013 7:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 21 June 2013 17:25, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2013/6/21 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: >>> Because practicality beats purity. This "wrong" Python code has been >>> good enough for all Python version up until 3.4, it makes sense to >>> keep it as a fallback instead of throwing it away. >> >> How do you plan to handle the following case in Python? >> >> "Looking in more detail: for the S_IFMT flags, OSX/Darwin/FreeBSD defines >> 0xe000 as S_IFWHT (whiteout), but Solaris defines it as >> S_IFPORT (event port)." >> >> We may keep the Python module if it is kept unchanged, but the Python >> and C modules should have the same public API (the C module should not >> have more features). > > I think it's OK to expose additional platform specific features in the > C version, and have them fail cleanly with the pure Python version > (rather than silently giving the wrong answer). What's not OK is for > the standard library to regress for other implementations just because > we added a C implementation for the benefit of CPython. That's exactly > the kind of thing PEP 399 says we *won't* do.
I was just writing up something similar. But as always, Nick said it better than me. -- 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
