(Sorry for the late reply, that's what you get when you don't Cc me...) Vladimir Marangozov wrote: > [Just] > > Gordon, how's that Stackless PEP coming along? > > Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-) > > Ah, in this case, we'll get a memory error after filling the whole disk > with frames <wink> No matter how much we wink to each other, that was a cheap shot; especially since it isn't true: Stackless has a MAX_RECURSION_DEPTH value. Someone who has studied Stackless "in detail" (your words ;-) should know that. Admittedly, that value is set way too high in the last stackless release (123456 ;-), but that doesn't change the principle that Stackless could solve the problem discussed in this thread in a reliable and portable manner. Of course there's be work to do: - MAX_RECURSION_DEPTH should be changeable at runtime - __str__ (and a bunch of others) isn't yet stackless - ... But the hardest task seems to be to get rid of the hostility and prejudices against Stackless :-( Just
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