Den 29.03.2011 02:09, skrev Robert Bradshaw:
We are very concerned about Python compatibility.
I did not intend to say you are not.
Judging from Guido's answer to Stephan, I think Guido is worried you are
not.
And that, BTW, is sufficient to prevent the use of Cython in CPython stdlib.
Stu
Robert Bradshaw, 29.03.2011 02:09:
I don't see re-implementing
working C modules written, though probably valuable from a maintenance
point of view, as compelling of a use case.
It would be rather helpful for CPython, though. Many stdlib modules lack
dedicated maintainers, and it's likely easi
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Den 25.03.2011 19:03, skrev Robert Bradshaw:
>>
Looking at Guido's comment, Cython must be able to compile all valid
Python if this will have any chance of success.
>>
>> Good thing that's our goal (pending an actual definition of "
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Cython is,
> without comparison, the easiest way of writing C extensions for Python.
> FWIW, it's easier to use Cython than ctypes. Using Cython instead of the C
> API will also avoid many programming errors, because a compiler does fewer
>
Den 25.03.2011 19:03, skrev Robert Bradshaw:
Looking at Guido's comment, Cython must be able to compile all valid
Python if this will have any chance of success.
Good thing that's our goal (pending an actual definition of "all valid Python.")
In lack of a Python language specification it ca
Sturla Molden wrote:
Why stop with the standard library? Why not implement the whole CPython
interpreter in Cython?
That would be tricky, because the code that Cython generates
depends on large chunks of CPython as an infrastructure.
--
Greg
___
cy
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Sturla Molden, 25.03.2011 14:03:
>>
>> Den 24.03.2011 20:38, skrev Robert Bradshaw:
>>>
>>> I started a list at http://wiki.cython.org/Unsupported . I'd say we
>>> can be as compatible as Jython/IronPython is, and more than CPython is
>>> bet
Sturla Molden, 25.03.2011 14:03:
Den 24.03.2011 20:38, skrev Robert Bradshaw:
I started a list at http://wiki.cython.org/Unsupported . I'd say we
can be as compatible as Jython/IronPython is, and more than CPython is
between minor versions. I would be happy with a short, well-justified
list of d
Den 24.03.2011 20:38, skrev Robert Bradshaw:
I started a list at http://wiki.cython.org/Unsupported . I'd say we
can be as compatible as Jython/IronPython is, and more than CPython is
between minor versions. I would be happy with a short, well-justified
list of differences. This will be clearer o
Robert Bradshaw, 24.03.2011 21:03:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 24.03.2011 20:18:
Anyone else willing to
mentor? I haven't pushed on GSoC much this year yet because no one's
stepped up to mentor, but there's still ample time on our side.
Ok, want to
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 24.03.2011 20:18:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Stefan Behnel, 22.03.2011 08:59:
Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2011 08:14:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel
Robert Bradshaw, 24.03.2011 20:18:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 22.03.2011 08:59:
Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2011 08:14:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Reimplementing existing C modules in Cython might, however, be more
interesti
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Craig Citro, 23.03.2011 08:11:
>>>
>>> We have a clear 1.0 goal, being able to compile the full Python
>>> language. We're not there yet, but very close. It may make sense at
>>> that point to also clean up any cruft we don't want to continu
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 22.03.2011 08:59:
>>
>> Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2011 08:14:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Reimplementing existing C modules in Cython might, however, be more
interesting for pytho
Stefan Behnel, 22.03.2011 08:59:
Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2011 08:14:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Reimplementing existing C modules in Cython might, however, be more
interesting for python-dev, but also be a larger undertaking. So a GSoC
might be worth running on that.
2011/3/23 Stefan Behnel :
> Craig Citro, 23.03.2011 08:11:
>>>
>>> We have a clear 1.0 goal, being able to compile the full Python
>>> language. We're not there yet, but very close. It may make sense at
>>> that point to also clean up any cruft we don't want to continue
>>> supporting forever. I ag
Craig Citro, 23.03.2011 08:11:
We have a clear 1.0 goal, being able to compile the full Python
language. We're not there yet, but very close. It may make sense at
that point to also clean up any cruft we don't want to continue
supporting forever. I agree, until that point, there's no way we would
Robert Bradshaw, 23.03.2011 00:54:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
I think it's a good idea, but I think it'd be better to use pure mode to get
code that runs either way, or some sort of preprocessor (I've used m4 with
good luck for this, though it doesn't syntax highlight
> We have a clear 1.0 goal, being able to compile the full Python
> language. We're not there yet, but very close. It may make sense at
> that point to also clean up any cruft we don't want to continue
> supporting forever. I agree, until that point, there's no way we would
> be a Python developmen
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> I think it's a good idea, but I think it'd be better to use pure mode to get
> code that runs either way, or some sort of preprocessor (I've used m4 with
> good luck for this, though it doesn't syntax highlight nicely) to
> automatically de
I think it's a good idea, but I think it'd be better to use pure mode to get
code that runs either way, or some sort of preprocessor (I've used m4 with
good luck for this, though it doesn't syntax highlight nicely) to
automatically derive pure python and cython from the same source file.
For me at
Robert Bradshaw, 22.03.2011 08:14:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
there seems to be quite some interest in a project to get parts of CPython
and specifically its stdlib rewritten in Cython. [...]
In short, we have strong supporters, but Guido has understandable doubts
aga
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there seems to be quite some interest in a project to get parts of CPython
> and specifically its stdlib rewritten in Cython. I've copied the latest
> python-dev mail below. The relevant part of the thread is here:
>
> http://thread.
2011/3/22 Stefan Behnel :
> Stefan Behnel, 22.03.2011 07:10:
>>
>> there seems to be quite some interest in a project to get parts of CPython
>> and specifically its stdlib rewritten in Cython.
>> [...] I gave it a try with difflib and it turned out to be quite easy.
>>
>> http://blog.behnel.de/ind
Stefan Behnel, 22.03.2011 07:10:
there seems to be quite some interest in a project to get parts of CPython
and specifically its stdlib rewritten in Cython.
[...] I gave it a try with difflib and it turned out to be quite easy.
http://blog.behnel.de/index.php?p=155
BTW, given how short that pa
Hi,
there seems to be quite some interest in a project to get parts of CPython
and specifically its stdlib rewritten in Cython. I've copied the latest
python-dev mail below. The relevant part of the thread is here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/122273/focus=122798
In short,
26 matches
Mail list logo
