On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:49:54 +0200 Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com> wrote:
Later, Mark says there is an even better way – or at least, a less intrusive one! In [the second discussion], he hints at it vaguely (from that limited info I have, it involves switching to C11 and/or using compiler-specific extensions -- not an easy change to do). But frustratingly, Mark doesn't reveal any actual details, and a lot of the complaints are about churn and merge conflicts. And now, there's news -- the better solution won't be revealed unless the PSF pays for it!
That's a very bad situation to be in for having discussions: basically, either we disregard Mark and go with the not-ideal solution, or virtually all work on changing the C API and internal structures is blocked.
The disagreement is basically on the promises of the "not-ideal solution". Victor claims it will help improve performance. People like Mark and I are skeptical that the C API is really an important concern (apart from small fixes relating to borrowed references, and that's mostly to make PyPy's life easier). Personally, I trust that Mark's proposed plan is workable. That doesn't mean it *will* work (that depends a lot on being able to maintain motivation and integrate changes at a good pace - which may be a challenge given the technical conservativeness in the CPython community), but it's technically sound. Regards Antoine.