On 11/20/2013 5:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 20, 2013, at 09:52 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
Many customers are forced to stick with Python 2.X because of other products,
but they require a Python 2.X version which can be compiled using Visual
Studio 2010 or better. This is considered an improvement and not a bug fix,
where I disagree.
I'm not so sure about that. Python 2.7 can still get patches to help extend
its useful life by allowing it to be built with newer compiler suites. I
believe this has already been done for various Linux compilers. I see no
non-technical reason why Python 2.7 can't be taught how to build with VS 2010
or newer. Details are subject to RM approval, IMHO.
With the availability of the free 2008 express edition being
problematical, I would really like to see this.
I have created a very clean Python 2.7.6+ based CPython with the Stackless
additions, that compiles with VS 2010, using the adapted project structure
of Python 3.3.X, and I want to publish that on the Stackless website as the
official "Stackless Python 2.8". If you consider Stackless as official ;-) .
A compiler change is not a language change and does not need merit a new
language version number. Anyway I believe that using 'Python 2.8' would
be illegal without PSF approval. From
http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
'"Python" is a registered trademark of the PSF.'
(PSF Tracemarks Committee, psf-tradema...@python.org)
The core developers determine the meaning of 'Python x.y' and we have
determined that there shall be no 'Python 2.8'. Or if you prefer, we
have defined it to be the empty language ;-).
This compiler change is currently the only deviation from CPython 2.7,
It is not a deviation from 'Python 2.7'. The compiler used by the PSF
*CPython* distribution is an implementation detail. For all I know,
other distributors, such as ActiveState, already distribute 2.7 compiled
with other compilers. Your new Stackless would still run Python 2.7.
but we may support a few easy back-ports on customer demand. We don'd add
any random stuff, of course.
I suspect that you (or your customers) will not be the only people who
want selected 3.x features without the 3.0 shift to unicode text and who
do not care about the 3.3 improvement of the unicode implementation. But
such hybrid mixtures are not 'Python x.y'. If you make such mixtures on
a private customer by customer basis, then no public name is needed.
I think you're just going to confuse everyone if you call it "Stackless Python
2.8" and it will do more harm than good.
Avoiding confusion is the purpose of registering trademarks.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
