Hello, On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:49:40 +1000 Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > wrote: > > For the same reason, I agree with Victor that we should ditch the > > threading-disabled builds. It's too much of a hassle for no actual, > > practical benefit. People who want a threadless unicodeless Python > > can install Python 1.5.2 for all I care. > > Or some other implementation of Python. It's looking like micropython > will be permanently supporting a non-Unicode build Yes. > (although I stepped > away from the project after a strong disagreement over what would and > would not make sense, and haven't been following it since). Your patches with my further additions were finally merged. Unicode strings still cannot be enabled by default due to https://github.com/micropython/micropython/issues/726 . Any help with reviewing/testing what's currently available is welcome. > If someone > wants a Python that doesn't have stuff that the core CPython devs > treat as essential, s/he probably wants something like uPy anyway. I hinted it during previous discussions of MicroPython, and would like to say it again, that MicroPython already embraced a lot of ideas rejected from CPython, like GC-only operation (which alone not something to be proud of, but can you start up and do something in 2K heap?) or tagged pointers (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-July/046139.html). So, it should be good vehicle to try any unorthodox ideas(*) or implementations. * MicroPython already implements intra-module constants for example. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com