On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Hardy <jdha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The >> idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go >> anywhere. I've revived it and am hoping to get it worked out in time >> for Python 3.3. > > First off, I like it. It's long overdue, but better late than never.
Agreed. Better cognizance of the alternate implementations has been a growing sentiment among the CPython core developers, especially Guido and Brett Cannon. Hopefully I'll be able to make a bigger push on this front once sys.implementation is all sorted out. >> >> Any feedback would be very helpful, particularly with regard to the >> decision on the type of sys.implementation and the constraints on >> sys.implementation.version. Thanks. > > I'd strongly prefer the named-tuple approach, like version_info. The > metadata attribute being a dict is fine (although the PEP doesn't > actually call that out in "Required Values" section; I had to search > to find out if it was actually a dict). I have some stuff I want to > put in there already. Good to know. Is your preference for a named tuple instead of a normal class? I'd rather not expose sys.implementation as a sequence type, but mostly I want to end up with something that's meaningful for everyone. > I'm not really sure there's much value in having sys.version_info and > sys.implementation.version be different, but I believe PyPy works that > way, so I have no objection to it. They'll be the same in IronPython, > though. > > Thanks for pushing this through. I'll probably add it the day after > it's approved. That's just what I wanted to hear. <wink> -eric _______________________________________________ Ironpython-users mailing list Ironpython-users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/ironpython-users
