Author lemburg
Recipients belopolsky, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, daniel.urban, lemburg, r.david.murray, techtonik
Date 2010-06-08.08:02:36
SpamBayes Score 0.000694121
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4C0DF91B.8030206@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1275958729.6.0.0895274034574.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Brett Cannon wrote:
> 
> Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> added the comment:
> 
> So I see a couple of objections here to the idea that I will try to address.
> 
> First is MAL's thinking that this will undo any C code, which it won't. The idea is that stdlib modules that do not inherently rely on other C code (e.g. sqlite3 does not fall underneath this) would have a pure Python implementation with possible C enhancements. In the case of datetime that  code is done, so it won't go anywhere. In this case it would be bringing in a pure Python implementation like the one PyPy maintains. You can look at heapq if you want an existing example of what it looks like to maintain a pure Python and C version of a module.

So the proposal is to have something like we have for pickle, with
cPickle being the fast version and pickle.py the slow Python one ?

Since no CPython would use the Python version, who would be supporting
the Python-only version ?
History
Date User Action Args
2010-06-08 08:02:39lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, brett.cannon, belopolsky, techtonik, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, daniel.urban
2010-06-08 08:02:37lemburglinkissue7989 messages
2010-06-08 08:02:36lemburgcreate