Stackless Python, eventual merge?
ianb at colorstudy.com
Tue Sep 17 01:53:33 EDT 2002
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 16:50, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> I looked at the old Stackless patches once, and spotted significant
> amounts of unexplicable code - code that did not serve any obvious
> purpose, was not documented, or clearly should have been removed. So
> the old Stackless patch was incomplete for integration into Python -
> it would have taken efforts to complete it, and to work with Python
> maintainers to integrate it. Nobody went through this effort (and
> again, I don't blame anybody for not doing that).
> >From a shallow inspection, the code merely looked complex - but it
> really was complicated, and complex is better than complicated.
But it doesn't seem like complexity was ever the fundamental problem --
the complexity could have been dealt with, but I don't believe there was
ever any indication that if it was simplified or documented that it
would get into standard Python.
It has been simplified, but I don't think that changes anything with
regard to getting it into standard Python -- the same barriers still
exist. It's simplification just means that it might be easier (and more
viable) to continue to maintain a forked version.
More information about the Python-list