Hi Yury,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if everybody agrees on the 3rd option, then can we have at least the
process of porting outlined and reviewed by core devs? No need for a
super-detailed PEP, though. A simple guideline would help
On 02:54 am, yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is kind of a weak argument, since the situation with
python 3 changes quickly. More and more libraries are being ported
each month. Supporting python 2 obviously just harms the python
ecosystem, as nobody interested in having two
I'm assuming it was a joke.
A huge amount of people today and likely over the next few years will
continue to rely on python 2.x where x (6,7). Let's not downplay the
importance of PyPy supporting those communities. I agree with you
Jean-Paul, Python 2 support in PyPy harms nothing.
Brian
On
Hum... It seems it's the end of my FreeBSD buildslave. :( I don't know when
it time the memory requirement jumped to over 4GB (Armin told me it was now
around 4.5GB for 64bits). I've been able to build a JIT enabled pypy binary
using Python and GCC 4.6 but it took over 10 hours. I'm unable to do
+1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?
On 2011-08-17, at 2:30 PM, Miquel Torres wrote:
@Armin
This would remain as a branch for the foreseeable future though,
because we still need a Python 2 interpreter, if only to run our own
translation toolchain on (and not suffer the 2.5x
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?
If by that way you mean leave python 2.x behind post 1.6 I'd like
to note that IMO pypy has been under-acknowledged by the wider python
community for a very long time.
