On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2010/7/25 Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de>: >> Nick Coghlan, 25.07.2010 08:29: >>> >>> We knew PEP 380 would be hurt by the moratorium when the moratorium >>> PEP went through. >>> >>> The goals of the moratorium itself, in making it possible to have a >>> 3.2 release that is fully supported by all of the major Python >>> implementations, still apply, and I believe making an exception for >>> PEP 380 *would* make those goals much harder to achieve. >> >> IMO, it would be worth asking the other implementations if that is the case. >> It may well be that they are interested in implementing it anyway, so >> getting it into CPython and the other implementations at the same time may >> actually be possible. It wouldn't meet the moratorium as such, but it would >> absolutely comply with its goals. > > Speaking from the PyPy perspective, syntax is not really a problem. > It, for example, took me ~1 week to more PyPy from 2.5 to 2.7 syntax. > A more interesting moratorium for us would be one on tests that are > not implementation portable. :) > > >
I thought at the last two pycons, we've all discussed that we should have a system in place for marking tests *and* modules within the stdlib as "will only work on FooPython". I suspect that it's waiting on the shared-stdlib effort, which is waiting on mercurial (and time). jesse _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com