Python 2.1 and Stackless

[Gordon McMillan]

Cameron Laird wrote:

>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.

That's why we call you Cameron "Politico" Laird behind your back <wink>.

>There *is* a fork now, right, in the sense that
>several people are using Stackless "industrially"
>already?  

Absolutely true. I'm one of 'em.

>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.

Certainly less effort than say the Mac port, but it doesn't "patch" well, 
so it's still a non trivial 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.

You are correct. The situation is sustainable, though definitely not 
optimal. And should the fork continue, I would expect the tines to be 
parallel, not increasingly divergent.

- Gordon