RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 6 19:24:08 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110500.html

> No worries, it wasn't even my code.  Someone
> donated it.  The was a discusion on python-dev
> and collective agreement to allow it to have
> semantic differences that would let it run faster.
> IIRC, the final call was made by Uncle Timmy.
>

The bug link is here:

http://bugs.python.org/issue3051

I think this PEP is precisely targeting this:

"I saw no need to complicate the pure python code for this."

if you complicate the C code for this, then please as well complicate
python code for this since it's breaking stuff.

And this:

"FWIW, the C code is not guaranteed to be exactly the same in terms of
implementation details, only the published API should be the same.
And, for this module, a decision was made for the C code to support
only lists eventhough the pure python version supports any sequence."

The idea of the PEP is for C code to be guaranteed to be the same as
Python where it matters to people.

Cheers,
fijal

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110500.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibiilty Requirements