Greg Ewing schrieb:
> Could backwards compatibility concerns be addressed
> by including more than one version of Python in
> the LSB? Python already allows multiple versions
> to coexist, so applications targeting the LSB
> would just need to be explicit about which version
> of the interpreter to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an
> internal implementation detail.
I think that has stopped being true at least since I wrote 1997, or
perhaps even since dis.py was written (i.e. right from the beginning
of the language). With d
Could backwards compatibility concerns be addressed
by including more than one version of Python in
the LSB? Python already allows multiple versions
to coexist, so applications targeting the LSB
would just need to be explicit about which version
of the interpreter to launch.
--
Greg
__
On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be
feasible,
>> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
>> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>>
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> In any case, having Python in the LSB means that ISVs (software
> vendors) who target LSB (rather than targetting specific Linux
> distributions) could develop their applications also in Python
> (whereas now they have to use C or C++).
... without having to include a Pyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>
> Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is
> Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI f
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
>> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would
>> be feasible, and should be attempted. What do you think?
>
> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is different
> for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since it's already
> released
>> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
>> and should be attempted. What do you think?
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is
Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since
Neal> it's already
On 12/4/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the LSB meeting, Jeff Licquia asked whether Python could provide
> binary compatibility with previous versions by use of ELF symbol
> versioning. In ELF symbol versioning, you can have multiple
> definitions for the same symbol; clients
At the LSB meeting, Jeff Licquia asked whether Python could provide
binary compatibility with previous versions by use of ELF symbol
versioning. In ELF symbol versioning, you can have multiple
definitions for the same symbol; clients (e.g. extension modules)
would refer to a specific version. Durin
11 matches
Mail list logo
