Martijn Faassen wrote: > Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote: >> Martijn Faassen wrote: >>> I'll just note what this might mean to you in terms of project >>> perception and perception of commitment: >>> >>> You're replacing one of the few areas of PyPy that at least *seemed* to >>> be useful in the near term for production use (even though it evidently >>> wasn't really) with "the extension compiler can be reimplemented with >>> rffi if someone is interested in doing that". >>> >>> I.e. you're removing your implicit commitment (in the form of code that >>> more or less worked) and replacing it with an explicit lack of >>> commitment or interest in making this work. >> I really thought we were through with that. > > I said I wasn't objecting. I'm not objecting. I'm just pointing out what > it means to me. I'm also asking the next question: CPython extensions > are definitely off the table. so what's up with the Python interpreter?
I do not see where you are pulling that statement off. It does not make sense after what has been said, before. There is also little resources to continue this thread that intensively, since we actually very busy doing a clean-up sprint. It is most likely that somebody will want to support building extensions using rffi. cheers - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ _______________________________________________ pypy-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
