On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:43:15 -0400 "R. David Murray" <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:14:46 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20 PM, senthil.kumaran <python-checkins@python.org> wrote: > .TP > +.BI "\-X " option > +Set implementation specific option.

Should probably be "Set the implementation-specific option."

Is there anyone respecting this notation? (I know pypy does not, it uses --jit and stuff)

CPython does. We introduced it for ourselves, it is up to other implementations whether or not to use it, or use something else.

--David

you mean "CPython does not have any implementation-specific options"? I would claim -O behavior should be implementation-specific since it's nonsense in the optimizations sense, but other than that, it does not seem that there is any -X options?

There is one. -X faulthandler. I'm sure others would agree about -O, but that long predates -X.

So, the idea is that -X *can* be used by other implementations for their own purposes, but there is certainly no requirement that they do so. Our promise is that anything CPython uses it for is something we don't expect other implementations to support.

Yes, basically -X is a private namespace for every implementation to use as it sees fit without fearing of conflicting with a future cross-implementation option.

Regards

Antoine.

I'm for one looking forward to the day where cpython conflicts on --jit ;-)