On 12/5/06, skip@pobox.com <skip@pobox.com> wrote:
"Martin" == Martin v Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> writes:
Martin> skip@pobox.com schrieb: >> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible, >> >> and should be attempted. What do you think? >> Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5since Neal> it's already released and our policy is to keep it constant. >> >> It seems that adhering to LSB's constraints is going to create a new set of >> problems for Python development. It's unclear to me what LSB brings to >> Python other than a bunch of new headaches.
Martin> I won't try to defend it, but would suggest that an evaluation Martin> is deferred until it is clear what the actual problems are, and Martin> then to judge whether they are additional problems (or perhaps Martin> just a tightening of procedures which we had been following all Martin> along).
Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an internal implementation detail. If I read the thread correctly there is at least a request (if not a requirement) to make it part of an external ABI if Python is to become part of the ABI. That may or may not be a large technical challenge, but I think it would be a significant philosophical change.
I don't think we are being asked to standardize the bytecode, but that we will accept .pyc files as generated by 2.4 in future interpreters as legitimate. That seems to implicitly require us to standardize the bytecode *and* they .pyc file format. -Brett