On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Eric Snow email@example.com wrote:
In October 2009 there was a short flurry of interest in adding "sys.implementation" as an object to encapsulate some implementation-specific information . Does anyone recollect where this proposal went? Would anyone object to reviving it (or a variant)?
FYI, there are several reasons why sys.implementation is a good idea when some of the same info is already in the platform module:
* The implementation in the platform module is essentially just guessing . With sys.implementation the various implementations would explicitly set the values in their own version of the sys module. * The platform module is part of the stdlib, which ideally would minimize implementation details such as would be in sys.implementation. * Any module used in the importlib bootstrap must be built-in or frozen, neither of which apply to the platform module. This is the point that led to me finding the previous proposal.
I expect that any overlap between sys.implementation and the platform module would simply defer to sys.implementation (with the same interface in platform wrapping it).
I'd like to move this forward, so any objections or feedback at this point would be helpful. If Christian is interested it taking this I'd gladly step back. Regardless, feedback from the different Python implementations will be especially important here. Preferably, sys.implementation (the object bundling the various info) would be available on all implementations sooner rather than later...