Message107308
| Author |
lemburg |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, daniel.urban, lemburg, r.david.murray, techtonik |
| Date |
2010年06月08日.08:02:36 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00069412123 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4C0DF91B.8030206@egenix.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1275958729.6.0.0895274034574.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> added the comment:
>
> So I see a couple of objections here to the idea that I will try to address.
>
> First is MAL's thinking that this will undo any C code, which it won't. The idea is that stdlib modules that do not inherently rely on other C code (e.g. sqlite3 does not fall underneath this) would have a pure Python implementation with possible C enhancements. In the case of datetime that code is done, so it won't go anywhere. In this case it would be bringing in a pure Python implementation like the one PyPy maintains. You can look at heapq if you want an existing example of what it looks like to maintain a pure Python and C version of a module.
So the proposal is to have something like we have for pickle, with
cPickle being the fast version and pickle.py the slow Python one ?
Since no CPython would use the Python version, who would be supporting
the Python-only version ? |
|