On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Thomas Heller <theller at ctypes.org> wrote: > Dirkjan Ochtman schrieb: >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 13:13, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote: >>> Would you consider Cython a Python implementation if we implemented this? >>> (which I guess we will do anyway at some point, simply because the >>> extensions are actually invalid code in the given context) >> >> Why do you want to be recognized as a Python implementation, anyway? I >> don't really understand why this seems so important to you. > > Advertising, I assume. That's what Stefan often does (at least it feels > this way, for me). I'm skeptical about Cython as a Python implementation. AFAIK it requires CPython to work (for the runtime functionality) and while Cython's syntax is very Python-like, it is probably best characterized as an extended subset (:-). I guess when it runs the entire standard test suite without errors it could claim to be a Python implementation; until then, I would rather consider it a useful tool to go with CPython. (The name is actually a bit confusing, but I don't have a desire to change it.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
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