On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Markus Schaber <m.scha...@3s-software.com> wrote: > Hi, Jeff, > >> Von: Jeff Hardy >> > 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. > > Hmm, maybe we could put the host/embedder info I suggested in the other mail > there. > >> 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. > > Hmm. It would open the possibility of IronPython supporting both Python 2.7 > and 3.X for some grace period...
Yeah, the idea of the PEP in whole is to make things easier for Python implementors. If it allows you greater flexibility then it'll have been worth it. -eric _______________________________________________ Ironpython-users mailing list Ironpython-users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/ironpython-users
