On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>wrote:
> Le 10/04/2014 20:58, Guido van Rossum a écrit : > > >> Huh, I totally missed this (and I just gave Kushal a confused answer >> when he asked me about it in person). Can someone please post here what >> the plan is exactly? I don't want to press for a PEP, but I would at >> least like to understand the plan for CFFI and PLY before it is >> executed, since I have never had to use either one, and it feels like >> each of these will require some commitment to maintenance once they are >> in, in addition to cleanup before they go in. >> > > FWIW, I do hope there would be a PEP before including CFFI... Actually I > don't understand what would justify an exemption There's absolutely no reason to exempt CFFI, IMHO. On the contrary -- the dependence on other 3rd party modules (PLY and pycparesr), and the related dilemma of whether to expose each/both as stdlib modules or hide as internal implementation details -- makes a PEP even more important here. Eli
_______________________________________________ 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
