[Python-Dev] PEP 384: Defining a Stable ABI

["Martin v. Löwis"]

>>> It also might make it easier for alternate implementations to support
>>> the same API so some modules could work cross implementation - but I
>>> suspect that's a non-goal of this PEP :).
>>>     
>>
>> Indeed :-) I'm also skeptical that this would actually allow
>> cross-implementation modules to happen. The list of functions that
>> an alternate implementation would have to provide is fairly long.
>>
>>   
> 
> Just in case you're unaware of it; the company I work for has an open
> source project called Ironclad.

I was unaware indeed; thanks for pointing this out.

IIUC, it's not just an API emulation, but also an ABI emulation.

> In particular we have had to address the issue of the GIL and extensions
> (IronPython has no GIL) and reference counting (which IronPython also
> doesn't) use.

I think this somewhat strengthens the point I was trying to make: An
alternate implementation that tries to be API compatible has to consider
so many things that it is questionable whether making Py_INCREF/DECREF
functions would be any simplification.

So I just ask:
a) Would it help IronClad if it could restrict itself to PEP 384
   compatible modules?
b) Would further restrictions in the PEP help that cause?

Regards,
Martin