[Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

[Nick Coghlan]

On 10 Jul 2014 19:59, "Alexander Belopolsky" <alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
>> I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these
PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished.  Did we hit some
unforeseen technical problem which stalled development?
>
>
> I tried to bring some sanity to that effort by opening a "meta issue":
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue15787
>
> My enthusiasm, however, vanished after I reviewed the refactoring for the
datetime module:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue15390
>
> My main objections are to following PEP 384 (Stable ABI) within stdlib
modules.  I see little benefit for the stdlib (which is shipped fresh with
every new version of Python) from following those guidelines.

The main downside of "do as we say, not as we do" in this case is that we
miss out on the feedback loop of what the stable ABI is like to *use*. For
example, the docs problem, where it's hard to tell whether an API is part
of the stable ABI or not, or the performance problem Stefan mentions.

Using the stable ABI for standard library extensions also serves to
decouple them further from the internal details of the CPython runtime,
making it more likely they will be able to run correctly on alternative
interpreters (since emulating or otherwise supporting the limited API is
easier than supporting the whole thing).

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140712/a71b9a83/attachment.html>