On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:17:35 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd go further and say we *should* move to that solution. > > Here's an interesting thought: for pure C modules without a Python > implementation, we can migrate to this architecture even *without* > creating pure Python equivalents. All we shou;d have to do is change > the test of the pure Python version to be that the module *can't be > imported* without the accelerator, rather than the parallel tests that > we normally implement when there's a pure Python alternative to the > accelerated version. (There would likely still be some mucking about > to ensure robust pickle compatibility, since that leaks implementation > details about exact module names if you're not careful)
What benefit would this have? Current situation: each Python implementation has its own implementation of the zlib module (as a C module for CPython, etc.). New situation: all Python implementations share a single, mostly empty, zlib.py file. Each Python implementation has its own implementation of the _zlib module (as a C module for CPython, etc.) which is basically the same as the former zlib module. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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