[Python-3000] PEP: Cleaning out sys and the "interpreter" module

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> <musiccomposition at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> > > -0.5 from me. For half of the names that the PEP proposes to move most
> > > users wouldn't be able to guess in which module to find them.
>
> > If they're in *one* (maybe two; we'll see.) other module, it'd be hard to
> > guess where they are? At the top of the sys docs, we'll put "sys: Generic
> > Python interpreter services. For CPython specific tools, see the cpython
> > module" I don't see why people have to be able to "guess" where a given
> > object is. (It should be reasonably placed, of course.)
>
> Yes, it will be hard, because most CPython users have no idea what
> other Python implementations can or cannot do.
>
> E.g. i was surprised to learn that Jython doesn't support a recursion
> limit, or that frame objects are not universal (in fact I think *you*
> are mistaken there).
On further examination, I see that you win on both counts. Jython does
support _getframe and recursion limits (although, I can't seem to get
it to work).
>
>
> OTOH I would guess that "executable" may not be meaningful in Jython,
> as you'd have to invoke the JVM first. Other examples: I'm not at all
> sure that all Python implementations should be expected to support
> tracing and profiling. And I don't get why builtin_module_names can't
> be universal.
executable in Jython is an empty string.
I don't see how tracing and profiling aren't "universal" when frames are.
I put builtin_module_names in interpreter because not all
implementations would have the concept of "compiled" in. However, I
can see both ways.
>
>
> Enough examples; I hope my point is clear.
Crystal.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
>



-- 
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson