On Aug 2, 2019, at 19:22, Brendan Barnwell firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 2019-08-02 19:16, Andrew Barnert wrote:
So, that’s the way forward. You could port the recipes to C and change the docs recipes to be “roughly equivalent” Python code in the help for each function. Or you could port itertools to Python plus C accelerator and then just copy-paste the recipes into the Python part. I suspect the latter would be easier to get accepted, but I have no idea whether it’s more or less work.
Does "port itertools to Python plus C accelerator" include "write a thin Python wrapper around the existing C"?
No. PEP 399 doesn’t say that would be accepted. But all that means is that there’s no PEP saying there should be a presumption in favor of your patch being accepted. i suspect that makes it the same situation as 99% of the other patches on b.p.o. And it would certainly be a lot less work.
So if you want to try it and see what Raymond says, I’d say go for it. Sure, it’s possible he’ll say no, or ask some follow up questions, or say it should go back to -ideas or -dev for more discussion, or whatever, but the easiest way to find out (unless he joins this thread) is to just file the bug and add the patch.
(By the way, why not just read PEP 399 instead of asking and then relying on the interpretation of some random guy on the internet?)