Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit : >> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome. >>> My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python >>> tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems >>> like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be >>> adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of >>> existence, so I assume there's a reason. >> It's not Pythonic. > > Hum... Yes ? Really ? Care to argument ?
Unfortunately such arguments quickly descend to the "yes it is", "no it isn't" level, as there is no objective measure of Pythonicity. Twisted is a complex set of packages which is difficult to understand from the outside,and is motivated by a specific approach to asynchronous operations that is neither well understood by the majority of programmers nor easily-explained to them. All the teaching sessions on Twisted I have attended have involved a certain amount of hand-waving or some over-heavy code examples with inadequate explanations. However I would say that Twisted has improve enormously over the last five years, and should really be a candidate for inclusion in the standard library. It would be a large component, though, and so there would be a number of heavy tasks involved, not least of them updating the documentation. So maintenance might be a worry unless a group stood up and committed to the task. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden --------------- Asciimercial ------------------ Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet Many services currently offer free registration ----------- Thank You for Reading ------------- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
