Stackless Python, eventual merge?

[Ian Bicking]

On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 02:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Michael Schneider <michaels at one.net> writes:
> > Could someone please explain to a "confused" python user. Why the
> > current version of stackless python would not be distributed like
> > threads???
> 
> Very easy: because nobody makes it so. That, in turn, is because
> nobody works on making it so. 
> 
> Christian (rightfully) points out that this is not his obligation:
> this is free software, he is not obliged to do anything - unless you
> pay him to do something. Nobody else is obliged to incorporate
> Stackless into Standard Python either. If you want this to happen,
> contribute.

I don't think this represents the current state of Stackless --
Christian has tried to get it into the standard Python, and it is not
for lack of desire or effort that that did not happen.  I think it could
be considered a difference of opinion between him and Guido -- in part,
Stackless introduces more complexity which Guido did not want to
maintain, and in part because Stackless is not portable to forms of
Python (not to Jython in particular, and certainly any .NET Python --
probably a Parrot Python as well).

So the issue is primarily technical/political, and not a matter of
resources.  

  Ian