Vladimir Marangozov wrote: > Gordon McMillan wrote: > > > > But I can't figure out what the h*ll is being PEPed. > > ... ... > > > ceval.c and grammar changes (or Christian can make it so), it > > seems to me the PEPable issue is whether the value this can add > > is worth the price of a less linear implementation. > > There's an essay + paper available, slides and an implementation. Of which the most up to date is the implementation. The slides / docs describe an earlier, more complex scheme. > What's the problem about formalizing this in a PEP and addressing > the controversial issues + explaining how they are dealt with? That's sort of what I was asking. As far as I can tell, what's controversial is "continuations". That's not in scope. I would like to know what controversial issues there are that *are* in scope. > I mean, if you're a convinced long-time Stackless user and > everything is obvious for you, this PEP should try to convince > the rest of us -- so write it down and ask no more <wink>. That's exactly wrong. If that were the case, I would be forced to vote -1 on any addition / enhancement to Python that I personally didn't plan on using. - Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4