Python 2.1 and Stackless

[Cameron Laird]

In article <8F9192021gmcmhypernetcom at 199.171.54.154>,
Gordon McMillan <gmcm at hypernet.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Yes. Stackless needs to be part of core python, or we have a fork. The 
>other stuff can all be extensions.
			.
			.
			.
I'm doing my best to say this in a neutral way.

There *is* a fork now, right, in the sense that
several people are using Stackless "industrially"
already?  Let's suppose so, for the moment, and
I'll use "fork" in this sense of, the-current-situ-
ation.  My impression is that this is a different
kind of fork than, say, the Emacs split, from this
perspective:  ceval.c is sufficiently slow-moving,
and Christian has sufficiently deep knowledge, that
he can patch future stackly Pythons with relatively
low risk and effort.

I'm not out to waste Christian's time with wasted
motion.  My only point is that its current absence
from the core is only a modest impediment to Stack-
less's diffusion.  Its viability is already almost
as great as it will be once it's in the core, because
it's a technology that'll be desired and supported
for a long time, whatever the details of its canoni-
zation.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html