
Yes. I wrote this, but only sent it to Armin because I thought it was too long and maybe it was wrong too. It is Still too long. Apologies.
It's neither too long nor wrong. Anyway, if anybody would write only something if it's supposed to be the absolute thruth, we might run into some severe problems :-) The exciting thing about this whole project is the fact that it's not set yet and things can be discussed.
Laura
Is it possible that this misunderstanding is all about naming? I am getting the impression that Stephan and Christian are looking for some basic fundamental types, the foundation of the system, to build things out of. And Armin is saying that there aren't any types, just behaviours of object spaces.
Yes, that's it. [...]
Maybe we have a language problem too. We shouldn't have called it the StdObjSpace. Instead we should have called it the C_like_familiar_ObjSpace.
After all, StdObjSpace seems fine since it should contain something that behaves like standard python objects.
Thus what we need are experimental specifications, in the form of unit tests, to measure whether a given objectspace is 'standard' or not -- in other words, does it comply with C Python. We aren't looking for better bits to build our space out of, we are looking for better ways to know if our space produces the correct behaviours.
Definatelly. At least the unittests for intobject and floatobject are doing exactly this (but then this is easy, because both xxxobjects are just wrappers of Pythons originals). We probably have to resort to string representations of the results and compare them with Python originals.
Laura
Stephan