[Python-Dev] PEP 0404 and VS 2010

[Terry Reedy]

On 11/20/2013 5:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 09:52 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
>
>> Many customers are forced to stick with Python 2.X because of other products,
>> but they require a Python 2.X version which can be compiled using Visual
>> Studio 2010 or better.  This is considered an improvement and not a bug fix,
>> where I disagree.
>
> I'm not so sure about that.  Python 2.7 can still get patches to help extend
> its useful life by allowing it to be built with newer compiler suites.  I
> believe this has already been done for various Linux compilers.  I see no
> non-technical reason why Python 2.7 can't be taught how to build with VS 2010
> or newer.  Details are subject to RM approval, IMHO.

With the availability of the free 2008 express edition being 
problematical, I would really like to see this.

>> I have created a very clean Python 2.7.6+ based CPython with the Stackless
>> additions, that compiles with VS 2010, using the adapted project structure
>> of Python 3.3.X, and I want to publish that on the Stackless website as the
>> official "Stackless Python 2.8". If you consider Stackless as official ;-) .

A compiler change is not a language change and does not need merit a new 
language version number. Anyway I believe that using 'Python 2.8' would 
be illegal without PSF approval. From
http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
'"Python" is a registered trademark of the PSF.'
(PSF Tracemarks Committee, psf-trademarks at python.org)

The core developers determine the meaning of 'Python x.y' and we have 
determined that there shall be no 'Python 2.8'. Or if you prefer, we 
have defined it to be the empty language ;-).

>> This compiler change is currently the only deviation from CPython 2.7,

It is not a deviation from 'Python 2.7'. The compiler used by the PSF 
*CPython* distribution is an implementation detail. For all I know, 
other distributors, such as ActiveState, already distribute 2.7 compiled 
with other compilers. Your new Stackless would still run Python 2.7.

>> but we may support a few easy back-ports on customer demand. We don'd add
>> any random stuff, of course.

I suspect that you (or your customers) will not be the only people who 
want selected 3.x features without the 3.0 shift to unicode text and who 
do not care about the 3.3 improvement of the unicode implementation. But 
such hybrid mixtures are not 'Python x.y'. If you make such mixtures on 
a private customer by customer basis, then no public name is needed.

> I think you're just going to confuse everyone if you call it "Stackless Python
> 2.8" and it will do more harm than good.

Avoiding confusion is the purpose of registering trademarks.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy