On May 31, 2004, at 10:51 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 08:49 PM 5/31/04 -0400, Bob Ippolito wrote: >> On May 31, 2004, at 8:37 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> >>> At 02:09 AM 6/1/04 +0200, Christian Tismer wrote: >>>> Anyway, I don't really get the point. >>>> 95% of Stackless is doing soft-switched stackless calls. >>>> Behavior is completely controllable. We can easily avoid >>>> any special C stack operation, by setting a flag that >>>> disallows it (easy to implement) or by excluding the hard >>>> switching stuff, completely (not an option now, but easy, too). >>> >>> If soft-switching is portable (i.e. pure C, no assembly), and is >>> exposed as a library module (so that Jython et al can avoid >>> supporting it), then perhaps a PEP for adding that functionality to >>> mainstream Python would be meaningful. >> >> Soft switching needs to be implemented in a few key places of the >> interpreter itself or else Stackless would surely have been >> maintained as an extension module. > > I'm aware of this, which is why I said "exposed" as a library module, > not "implemented" as one. :) Oh, it *is* already exposed as a module (named stackless)... but it's *implemented* as a built-in module, like sys or os. -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2357 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040531/eea2a8b0/smime.bin
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