Am 16.01.2014 20:46, schrieb Yury Selivanov: > Guido, > > On Thursday, January 16, 2014, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org > <mailto:gu...@python.org>> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Yury Selivanov > <yselivanov...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > The whole discussion of whether clinic should write its output > > right in the source file (buffered or not), or in a separate sidefile, > > started because we currently cannot run the clinic during the build > > process, since it’s written in python. > > But that's why the output is checked in. It's the same with the parser > IIRC. (And yes, there's a bootstrap issue -- but that's solved by > using an older Python version.) > > > But what if, at some point, someone implements the Tools/clinic.py in > > pure C, so that integrating it directly in the build process will be > > possible? In this case, the question is — should we use python code > > in the argument clinic DSL? > > > > If we keep it strictly declarative, then, at least, we’ll have this > > possibility in the future. > > Sounds like a pretty unlikely scenario. Why would you implement clinic in > C? > > > Unlikely, yes.
About as unlikely as switching the Python sources to C++ and using templates to implement a Clinic-like DSL :) Georg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
