Python 2.0 and Stackless

[Martijn Faassen]

Gordon McMillan <gmcm at hypernet.com> wrote:
> Vladimir Marangozov wrote:
[snip]
>>This has direct consequences for people interested in serializing the
>>interpreter state. Currently, if I stop the interpreter at P, I *can*
>>serialize the whole interpreter state (including the objects and the
>>stack of execution frames), then restore it, say on another machine, and
>>resume the execution at P. Without the stack, this would be a royal pain
>>to do (it is not impossible, but it is hard).

> Seems to me that requests for this feature have largely been met with 
> "Dream on!". One of the difficulties sited is the fact that the C-stuff on 
> the stack has to be untangled from the Python stuff. OTOH, with stackless, 
> it's trivial to capture the current state of the Python stuff (you can do 
> that right now, you just can't persist it).

The odd thing is that Chris Tismer was talking about serializing the
interpreter state as a *feature* of Stackless! Though he hadn't implemented
it yet (at the time of the Python conference when we had this conversation),
he implied Stackless would make this possible.

Now if I understand it right, Vladimir is saying Stackless makes this *harder*.
Odd.

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?