RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 21 17:38:26 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-June/127005.html

Le Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:29:40 +1000,
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> a écrit :
> On 21 June 2013 21:45, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> > Le Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:39:10 +1000,
> > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> a écrit :
> >> What's not OK is for
> >> the standard library to regress for other implementations just
> >> because we added a C implementation for the benefit of CPython.
> >> That's exactly the kind of thing PEP 399 says we *won't* do.
> >
> > For me, PEP 399 should not be considered a requirement but a
> > guideline. stat.py is algorithmically trivial and I don't think it
> > saves much work for authors of third-party Python implementations.
> 
> So why not just replace the *broken* parts of stat.py and keep the
> rest of it? Why make pointless work for the other implementations?

I guess the answer is: because it's more work for us :-)

> Basically, I want to hear from the Jython, PyPy and IronPython devs
> that they're OK with us deleting Lib/stat.py. Hearing other CPython
> devs say they're fine with it doesn't mean anything, since we're not
> the ones that will have to do additional work as a result.

Yes, I agree with that.

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-June/127005.html below:

[Python-Dev] stat module in C -- what to do with stat.py?