On 10 Jul 2014 19:59, "Alexander Belopolsky" <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished. Did we hit some unforeseen technical problem which stalled development? > > > I tried to bring some sanity to that effort by opening a "meta issue": > > http://bugs.python.org/issue15787 > > My enthusiasm, however, vanished after I reviewed the refactoring for the datetime module: > > http://bugs.python.org/issue15390 > > My main objections are to following PEP 384 (Stable ABI) within stdlib modules. I see little benefit for the stdlib (which is shipped fresh with every new version of Python) from following those guidelines.
The main downside of "do as we say, not as we do" in this case is that we miss out on the feedback loop of what the stable ABI is like to *use*. For example, the docs problem, where it's hard to tell whether an API is part of the stable ABI or not, or the performance problem Stefan mentions. Using the stable ABI for standard library extensions also serves to decouple them further from the internal details of the CPython runtime, making it more likely they will be able to run correctly on alternative interpreters (since emulating or otherwise supporting the limited API is easier than supporting the whole thing). Cheers, Nick. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
