On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:37:41 -0400
"R. David Murray"
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:06:09 +0200, Stefan Behnel
wrote: That's what makes the PEP feel so unfair to CPython developers, because they are the ones who carry most of the burden of maintaining the stdlib in the first place, and who will most likely continue to carry it, because other implementations will continue to be occupied with their own core development for another while or two. It is nice to read that other implementations are contributing back patches that simplify their own reuse of the stdlib code. However, that does not yet make them equal contributors to the development and the maintenance of the stdlib, and is of very little worth to the CPython project. It often even runs counter to the interest of CPython itself.
So, the PEP makes the burden worse in that it requires that someone who works on a module with a C accelerator must make sure that any existing Python version and the C version stay in sync, and that *anyone* who wants to introduce a new module into the stdlib must make sure it has a Python version if that is practical. IMO both of these are policies that make sense for CPython even aside from the existence of other implementations: Python is easier to read and understand, so where practical we should provide a Python version of any module in the stdlib, for the benefit of CPython users.
It doesn't sound like a great burden to me, but I'm not really qualified to judge, since I don't generally work on C code.
I think it's ok. Our experience on the io module proves, I think, that's it's indeed useful to have a pure Python (pseudocode-like) implementation. Regards Antoine.