Le Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:29:40 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On 21 June 2013 21:45, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > Le Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:39:10 +1000, > > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> 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. > > > > For me, PEP 399 should not be considered a requirement but a > > guideline. stat.py is algorithmically trivial and I don't think it > > saves much work for authors of third-party Python implementations. > > So why not just replace the *broken* parts of stat.py and keep the > rest of it? Why make pointless work for the other implementations?
I guess the answer is: because it's more work for us :-) > Basically, I want to hear from the Jython, PyPy and IronPython devs > that they're OK with us deleting Lib/stat.py. Hearing other CPython > devs say they're fine with it doesn't mean anything, since we're not > the ones that will have to do additional work as a result. Yes, I agree with that. 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
