On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Paul Rubin <no.email at nospam.invalid> wrote: > Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> writes: > > Why would having PyPy as the reference implementation have made this > design > > decisions turn out better? >> A fair amount of Python 2's design was influenced by what was convenient > or efficient to implement in CPython. > It's dangerous for a language to be defined by a single implementation for too long. Also, a language defined by an implementation in a flexible language is more likely to escape some problems than a language defined by an implementation in a rigid language. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20110401/f0672f55/attachment-0001.html>