RetroSearch Browse

Sun Mar 24 13:00:00 EDT 2019 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156851.html

On 2019-03-24 16:22, Mark Shannon wrote:
> Hi Petr,
>
> Regarding PEPs 576 and 580.
> Over the new year, I did a thorough analysis of possible approaches to
> possible calling conventions for use in the CPython ecosystems and came
> up with a new PEP.
> The draft can be found here:
> https://github.com/markshannon/peps/blob/new-calling-convention/pep-9999.rst

Thanks for that. Is this new PEP meant to supersede PEP 576?

> I'd like to have a testable branch, before formally submitting the PEP,
> but I'd thought you should be aware of the PEP.

If you want to bring up this PEP now during the PEP 576/580 discussion, 
maybe it's best to formally submit it now? Having an official PEP number 
might simplify the discussion. If it turns out to be a bad idea after 
all, you can still withdraw it.

In the mean time, I remind you that PEP 576 also doesn't have a complete 
reference implementation (the PEP links to a "reference implementation" 
but it doesn't correspond to the text of the PEP).

Jeroen.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156851.html below:

[Python-Dev] BDFL-Delegate appointments for several PEPs