which cleared up some misconceptions I had, I got to wonder. We started out deciding to define RPython. That bogged down. So we decided to make it be 'the minimal set of Python that we need for things to work' defined as 'what we have when we are done writing the translation layer'. This _is_ the pragmatic approach. But I now wonder if we might benefit from trying to define it more formally again. It might give us (me at any rate) a better idea of exactly what obvious direct C equivalents we need. But perhaps the rest of you can already see this without any formal definition .... Just a thought, Laura
Hi Laura, On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 06:09:48PM +0200, Laura Creighton wrote:
trying to define it more formally again. It might give us (me at any rate) a better idea of exactly what obvious direct C equivalents we need.
The guidelines in svn/pypy/trunk/doc/objspace/restrictedpy.txt are still almost up-to-date. (I just mentioned dictionaries, which we decided to allow with string keys during the last sprint.) We might bit the bullet and write down a more formally complete and less hand-wavy definition, though. Armin
Hi Laura, On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 06:09:48PM +0200, Laura Creighton wrote:
trying to define it more formally again. It might give us (me at any rate) a better idea of exactly what obvious direct C equivalents we need.
The guidelines in svn/pypy/trunk/doc/objspace/restrictedpy.txt are still almost up-to-date. (I just mentioned dictionaries, which we decided to allow with string keys during the last sprint.) We might bit the bullet and write down a more formally complete and less hand-wavy definition, though. Armin
participants (2)
-
Armin Rigo -
Laura Creighton