R. David Murray
rdmurray at bitdance.com
Fri Apr 27 20:49:55 CEST 2012
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:40:43 -0700, Glenn Linderman <v+python at g.nevcal.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 12:34 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Barry Warsaw<barry at python.org> wrote:
> >> It's somewhat of a corner case, but I think a PEP couldn't hurt. The
> >> rationale section would be useful, at least.
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2012-April/014954.html
> My conclusion is that sys.implementation clearly should not be part of
> the stdlib, but rather be part of the language implementation. Whether
> it then fits with the rest of what is in sys, or not, I am not qualified
> to say. If not, perhaps a new module name is warranted... perhaps
> "implementation" at the top level of the namespace.
IMO, there are two different things here that you are conflating(*): the
*implementation* of the stdlib, and the stdlib *API*. sys.implementation
would be a part of the API that any conforming implementation of
python+stdlib would be required to implement.
We also have a goal of making as much of the *implementation* of the
stdlib usable by any python implementation as possible, but as you say
that is a work in progress.
There are, by the way, many things documented in the "library"
documentation that are in fact provided by the language implementation
itself. All of the fundamental types, for example.
(*) the Oracle lawyers sometimes seem to be trying to get
the judge and jury to make the same mistake.
More information about the Python-Dev