Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 19:41, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> >> wrote: >>> As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1] >>> about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in >>> favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together >>> has been raised on the basis that Python is easier to experiment on >>> and read (for other vm implementors). >> Probably not a surprise, but +1 from me for keeping the pure Python version >> around for the benefit of other VMs as well as a reference implementation. > > You have been practice channeling me again, haven't you? I like the > idea of having two (closely matching) implementations very much. In > 2.x we did this on an ad-hoc basis, e.g. [c]StringIO, pickle/cPickle, > heapq/_heapq. In 3.0 we've moved towards standardizing the approach -- > the foo.py file first defines everything and then tries to import * > from _foo on top of that. Currently, if I want to verify that (say) cFoo and Foo do the same thing, or compare their speed, it's easy because I can import the modules separately. Given the 3.0 approach, how would one access the Python versions without black magic or hacks? -- Steven
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