Q: Python 2.0 preliminary features?

[Tim Peters]

[Guido]
>> Note that this is also one of the reasons why I'm feeling uneasy
>> with the stackless Python patch set ... it uses a magic object

[Greg Ewing]
> I wouldn't reject the whole idea of a stackless interpreter
> on the basis of that implementation, though. I suspect the
> author used a special object because it got the job done with
> minimal changes to the existing code.

"Minimal changes" was indeed one of Christian's explicit goals.

>> (another reason is that it can't be done in JPython so it can't be
>> made a part of the language standard)

> Has supporting JPython become an official guiding principle
> behind mainstream Python development?

Obviously so -- although I don't see what an implementation technique has to
do with the language standard!  This needs clarification.

> That may turn out to be somewhat restrictive in the long term.

Unlikely.  Language designers-- like the rest of us --have two bottomless
bags of tricks:  one for justifying changes they like, and another for
squashing those they dislike.  JPython so far has had nothing but good
effects on CPython, restraining gratuitous fiddling, clarifying the intended
semantics, and increasing the pressure for assorted good things (like some
form of gc, healing the type/class split (which JPython is largely free of),
and adding methods to string objects).  If it ends up choking some idea from
Pluto (or Scheme -- same thing <wink>), we'll have to weigh that against all
the good that it's done.

moderation-in-a-moderate-number-of-things-ly y'rs  - tim