<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:52, Stefan Behnel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stefan_ml@behnel.de">stefan_ml@behnel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Benjamin Peterson wrote:<br>
> 2009/3/5 Guido van Rossum <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>>:<br>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Stefan Behnel <<a href="mailto:stefan_ml@behnel.de">stefan_ml@behnel.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> And, BTW, I wouldn't mind getting lxml into the stdlib either.<br>
>> No matter how beautiful and fast lxml is, it has one downside where it<br>
>> comes to installing it into the stdlib: it is based on large, complex<br>
>> 3rd party libraries, libxml2 and libxslt.<br>
><br>
> And it depends on Cython, which is wonderful normally, but maybe<br>
> difficult to deal with in language evolution since we wouldn't have<br>
> direct control over the C sources.<br>
<br>
I see the point, although I think that this can be dealt with by<br>
<br>
a) using a specific, stable release version of Cython for a specific Python<br>
release, so that this Cython version can be bug fixed if required (it's<br>
implemented in Python, after all)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>So including Cython source in the stdlib and then check in the generated C code? I don't think that adding another build dependency for the stdlib, especially for one already with several external dependencies itself, is a good idea.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
or<br>
<br>
b) adding Cython to the stdlib and building with that</blockquote><div><br>That's an entirely separate discussion (for which my initial answer is to not consider it until it has stabilized to a 1.0 release).<br><br>-Brett<br>
</div></div>