On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:18 PM Paul Sokolovsky email@example.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:39:42 +1100 Chris Angelico firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:37 PM Paul Sokolovsky email@example.com 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.
My bad, you wrote it up in the same style and I assumed your intention was to go that route. Generalizing a bit: "Why a python-ideas proposal?"
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").
But you can make your own private research project without asking anyone else for information. Why try to synchronize with anyone else? Why not just make your own thing and find out what constness can do for Python?