On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I would like to discuss on the language summit a potential inclusion
>> of cffi[1] into stdlib.
>
> I think cffi is well worth considering as a possible inclusion for
> Python 3.4. (In particular, I'm a fan of the fact it just uses C
> syntax to declare what you're trying to talk to)
>
> If I'm reading the dependencies correctly, we would also need to bring
> Eli Bendersky's pycparser into the stdlib, correct? (not an objection,
> just an observation, although we'd obviously need Eli's explicit
> endorsement for that).

Yes, although, depending on the circumstances it's possible to hide it
somewhere in cffi and not make it an official stdlib API (then several
rules does not apply). It also pulls in some version of ply (or a
generated parser).

I'll be the first one to admit that pycparser is almost certainly not generally useful enough to be exposed in the stdlib. So just using it as an implementation detail is absolutely fine. PLY is a more interesting question, however, since PLY is somewhat more generally useful. That said, I see all this as implementation details that shouldn't distract us from the main point of whether cffi should be added.

Eli