On 10 June 2014 23:05, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:07:40 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I believe it's a space/speed trade-off, so I'd be surprised if it made >> sense for CPython in general. There are also some behavioural differences >> when it comes to handling syntax errors. >> >> Now that I think about the idea a bit more, if the MicroPython folks can >> get a low memory usage incremental file execution model working, the >> semantic differences mean it would likely make the most sense as a separate >> API in runpy, rather than as an implicit change to run_path. > > If it is a separate API, it seems like there's no reason it couldn't be > contributed back to CPython. There might be other contexts in which > low memory would be the right tradeoff. Although, if key bits end > up working at the C level, "contributing back" might require writing > separate C for CPython, so that might not happen.
Yeah, as a separate API it could make sense in CPython - I just didn't go back and revise the first paragraph after writing the second one :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
