On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:39:42 +1100 Chris Angelico email@example.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:37 PM Paul Sokolovsky firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
A sufficiently smart JIT is sufficiently hard to develop. As an example, a most well-known and most-used Python implementation, CPython, doesn't have any JIT at all, not only "sufficiently advanced", but even "simple". But simple would be much easier to add (to any project). And my proposal explores how to get specific advantages from even simple JIT techniques.
If all you're doing is exploring, why a PEP?
Where's PEP? I informally once called my stuff "pseudo-PEP", to emphasize that it aspires to cover a topic in-depth, like expected from a PEP. But it's not fully written up to PEP standards, nor intended to be it.
Just create a "Python with constness" variant, and go to town. What's the advantage of having CPython and Jython and PyPy and everyone else synchronize on your proposed syntax?
Because all those things are "Pythons", and there should be exchange of ideas and cross-pollination between implementations, and what can be a better place for that, than a list called "python-ideas"? (Short of it being renamed to "cpython-ideas").