[stdlib-sig] Proposal: new "interpreter" module

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Carl Friedrich Bolz <cfbolz at gmx.de> wrote:

> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > Some comments:
> >
> > The rational groups the function in two groups and this grouping
> > makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > However, your proposal later on doesn't use this rational in any
> > way.
> >
> > IMHO, it would be better to keep a "sys" module that exposes everything
> > you have in group 1 and an implementation specific module "cpython"
> > that exposes everything you have in group 2.
> >
> > If an applications needs CPython specific features it would then
> > import cpython. This would make things easy to see in the source
> > code and also raise an exception on platforms where this module
> > is not available, e.g. Jython. The same could be done for
> > other Python implementations, e.g. have a "jython" module for
> > Jython specific things, "ironpython" for IronPython, etc.
>
> I think the idea is nice, but PyPy couldn't really expose a "pypy"
> module, since that is the namespace the implementation itself is living
> in. Maybe add a suffix to the implementation name? cpython_vm or so.

You can name your implementation specific module anything you want. We're
not forcing anybody else to use our naming scheme! :)

>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Friedrich Bolz
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/stdlib-sig/attachments/20080407/5df8b1e1/attachment.htm