RetroSearch Browse

Sat Apr 16 23:54:58 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110784.html

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:45:52 -0700
Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 14:23, Stefan Krah <stefan at bytereef.org> wrote:
> 
> > Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > > In the grand python-dev tradition of "silence means acceptance", I
> > consider
> > > this PEP finalized and implicitly accepted.
> >
> > I did not really see an answer to these concerns:
> >
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110672.html
> >
> 
> Antoine does seem sold on the 100% branch coverage requirement and views it
> as pointless.

Not really. I think this is an unreasonable requirement because of the
reasons I've stated in my previous messages :)
If you rephrase it to remove the "100% coverage" requirement and
replace it by something like "comprehensive coverage", then I'm ok.

> Now if people would actually support simply not accepting any more C modules
> into the Python stdlib (this does not apply to CPython's stdlib), then I'm
> all for that.

Hmm, what's the difference between "the Python stdlib" and "CPython's
stdlib"?

I'm also not sure how you would enforce that anyway. If it means
using ctypes to interface with system C libraries, I'm -10 on it :)

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110784.html below:

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