[Python-Dev] PEP 370 and IronPython
brett at python.org
Fri Oct 9 20:43:06 CEST 2009
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:32, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>wrote:
> The *only* change in semantics I'm proposing is for users of IronPython 2.6
> which is not even at final release yet. CPython users would be unaffected.
Then why can't IronPython patch site.py to do what they want? I still feel
uncomfortable changing site.py for this in a micro release.
> Sorry for top-posting, mobile device.
Aahz was the most adamant hater of top-posting and he isn't subscribed to
python-dev anymore, so whatever.
> On 9 Oct 2009, at 19:00, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 04:53, Michael Foord < <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>
> fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> Christian Heimes wrote:
>>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>>> I really like this scheme. The important thing for IronPython is that we
>>>> can get it into Python 2.6 (along with other fixes to make distutils
>>>> compatible with IronPython - like not attempting to bytecode-compile when
>>>> sys.dont_write_bytecode is True).
>>> I don't think my proposal will land into 2.6. The changes are too severe
>>> for a bug fix release.
>> Right, certainly not adding umpteen new sys attributes. :-)
>> The problem is that the alternative implementations run well behind
>> Python-trunk, indeed it doesn't really make sense for them to put a lot of
>> effort into implementing a version that is still in development. The result
>> is that they discover incompatibilites after a version has gone into 'bugfix
>> only' mode.
>> Whilst the fix you have described (add information to sys that is used by
>> site.py and distutils) is ideal it can only go into 2.7. I would *still*
>> like to see a fix in 2.6 - even if it is simple logic in site.py using
>> sys.platform (if sys.platform == 'cli'; elif sys.platform == 'java' etc).
>> That way IronPython 2.6 is able to be compatible with Python 2.6. This logic
>> might need duplicating in distutils (I haven't looked at how distutils works
>> out where the user site-packages folder is), but it is a 'maintenance only'
> But it's still a change in semantics. Tossing this into 2.6 would mean that
> anyone who has worked around the current behaviour is going to have a busted
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev