En Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:29:58 -0200, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> En Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:34:30 -0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> escribió: >>> On 8 Feb., 17:18, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't understand why a pure python version of salsa20 would be >>>> interesting. Is there some application that uses salsa20, that's >>>> worth being able to interoperate with in pure python? >>> >>> The reason for a pure python is that it would be independent from the >>> platform. A C implementation is faster, but you need to compile it for >>> every platform. A python implementation doesn't have that problem and >>> could be used to fall back upon. >> >> On most platforms -with a notable exception- there is a C compiler >> available as a standard tool, which is used to compile Python itself. >> distutils can easily compile and install C extensions itself, so most of >> the time "python setup.py install" is the only thing users have to >> execute, exactly the same as if the package were pure Python. With >> setuptools, things may be even easier. > > What about Jython, PyPy, and IronPython? What about them? Do you mean that there should be a Python implementation for each and every imaginable module over there, so it can be used with all of those Python variants? Restricted of course to their minimum common feature set? -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
