<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Barry Warsaw <<a href="mailto:barry@python.org">barry@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:33 AM, <a href="mailto:fwierzbicki@gmail.com">fwierzbicki@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
<div style><br></div><div style>That idea obviously isn't fleshed out but i figure i'd better plant the seed...</div><div style><br></div><div style>It'd mean smaller code objects and less bloat from constants (docstrings for one implementation vs another, etc) being in memory. Taken further, this could even be extended beyond implementations to platforms as we have some standard library code with alternate definitions within one file for windows vs posix, etc.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Antoine's point about code like that being untestable by most CPython developers is valid. I'd want --with-pydebug builds to disable any parsing -> code object exclusions to at least make sure its syntax doesn't rot but that still doesn't _test_ it unless we get someone maintains reliable buildbots for every implementation using this common stdlib.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>-gps</div></div></div></div>
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