Message364030
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, brett.cannon, dino.viehland, eric.snow, fabioz, gregory.p.smith, lukasz.langa, phsilva, vstinner |
| Date |
2020年03月12日.17:05:44 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1584032745.05.0.917722062603.issue38500@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
For me, the *short term* goal is to find a way to limit the number of broken C extension module while we modify the C API to make it more opaque.
We cannot reach all goals at once (opaque C API, subinterpreter, more optimizations, etc). We have to move step by step.
For me it's ok to deprecate or even remove PyInterpreterState_SetEvalFrameFunc() later, once we will have a good reason for that.
I'm also ok with having an alternative Python implementation which doesn't support PyInterpreterState_SetEvalFrameFunc(). Users would be able to make a choice: faster Python without PyInterpreterState_SetEvalFrameFunc(), or regular "slow" Python with PyInterpreterState_SetEvalFrameFunc(). That's part of my larger https://pythoncapi.readthedocs.io/ goal: the ability to use different Python "runtimes".
From what I understood, to be able to provide multiple Python runtimes, we have first to "fix" the C API. The HPy project is another approach to this problem. Making the C API opaque makes CPython closer to this goal. |
|