On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:53:39 -0700 Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: > > On 08/05/2013 02:55 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 5 August 2013 18:48, Larry Hastings<la...@hastings.org> wrote: > >> Question 0: How should we integrate Clinic into the build process? > > Isn't solving the bootstrapping problem the reason for checking in the > > clinic-generated output? If there's no Python available, we build what > > we have (without the clinic step), then we build it again *with* the > > clinic step. > > It solves the bootstrapping problem, but that's not the only problem > Clinic presents to the development workflow. > > If you modify some Clinic DSL in a C file in the CPython tree, then run > "make", should the Makefile re-run Clinic over that file? If you say > "no", then there's no problem. If you say "yes", then we have the > problem I described.
I say "yes" and I think best-effort is the solution. Usually, the current clinic should be good enough to compile future C changes. If it isn't, just revert your working copy and start again (save your changes and re-apply them if desired). importlib has the same theoretical problem but it works well enough in practice, even though it could be maddening at times when the code wasn't quite stabilized. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
