Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> added the comment: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Jean-Paul Calderone <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Jean-Paul Calderone <exar...@divmod.com> added the comment: > >> Oh, and "what to do of the now unused pure Python implementations in > io.py"? Easiest would be to dump them, as they will probably get > hopelessly out of sync, but perhaps there's some genuine > portability/educational advantage to keep them? > > The test suite should be run against both implementations. That way > tested behavior will always be the same for both. And all of its > behavior is tested, right? ;) > > The value in the Python implementation is manifold. For example: > > * It eases testing of new features/techniques. Rather than going > straight to the C version when someone has an idea for a feature, it can > be implemented and tried out in Python. If it's cool, then the extra > effort of porting to C can be undertaken. > * It helps other Python implementations immensely. PyPy, IronPython, > and Jython are all going to have to provide this library eventually (one > supposes). Forcing them each to re-implement it will mean it will be > that much longer before they support it.
We don't maintain any other features in two languages for those purposes. IMO, it will just be more of a burden to fix bugs in two different places as compared to the advantages you mention. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4565> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
