Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread Nick Coghlan
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:50 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > Thanks, your explanation seems to me to make a good case for making the > decimal.py implementation less permissive. Indeed. Since the current handling of Context in decimal.py violates "Errors should never pass silently, unless explicitly

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread R. David Murray
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:17:11 +0200, Stefan Krah wrote: > R. David Murray wrote: > [snip a lot] > > Thank you, this cleared up many things. Heh. Keep in mind that this is my viewpoint. I *think* Brett agrees with me. I'm sure he'll speak up if he doesn't. > The technical reason is that the c

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread Stefan Krah
R. David Murray wrote: [snip a lot] Thank you, this cleared up many things. > > In the case of duck typing, the only solution I see is to lock down the > > types in decimal.py, thus changing the API. This is one of the things that > > should be decided *before* the PEP is accepted. > > Here yo

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread R. David Murray
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:14:51 +0200, Stefan Krah wrote: > I'm not sure that I understand the duplication of effort: If there > is a C module without a Python implementation in the stdlib, then > the PyPy, Jython, and IronPython developers are free to cooperate > and implement a single Python versio

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread Stefan Krah
R. David Murray wrote: > > The PEP seems to be predicated on a notion that anything written in C is > > bad and > > that all testing is good. AFAICT, it doesn't provide any practical advice > > to > > someone pursuing a non-trivial project (such as decimal or threading). The > > PEP > > Deci

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread Stefan Krah
Brett Cannon wrote: > Now if people would actually support simply not accepting any more C modules > into the Python stdlib (this does not apply to CPython's stdlib), then I'm all > for that. I only went with the "accelerator modules are okay" route to help > get > acceptance for the PEP. But if

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibility Requirements

2011-04-17 Thread Stefan Krah
Brett Cannon wrote: > Since they do not typically support the entire `C API of Python`_ they > are unable to use the code used to create the module. Often times this > leads these other VMs to either re-implement the modules in pure > Python or in the programming language used to i