Paul Rubin wrote: > "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team >>works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in >>RPython i.e. a statically translateable subset of Python. So even >>without dynamic code specialization there will be an optimization path >>based on the PyPy toolchain that is amazing.
Well. "... the PyPy team works on ..." is definitively much too strong. It is more like "... the PyPy team is thinking about ...". It is very unclear whether it will work on a technical level and whether the EU will allow us to allocate resources accordingly. > Sounds great but is that a whole lot different from pyrex? Indeed, there are similarities to pyrex. Of course in pyrex you have to give the types yourself, but since the type inference engine of PyPy can sometimes be hard to understand this is maybe not the worst trade-off. A nice advantage of the PyPy approach would be that you can test your RPython code by running it on top of CPython until it works and only then translating it into C. Plus it would be possible to use the same extension module for PyPy, CPython and potentially even Stackless or Jython (if somebody writes a Java backend). But as I said, this is all pretty unclear at the moment (and getting really quite off-topic for this thread). Cheers, Carl Friedrich -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
