> There is a fair possibility that the 'community' will prefer Python 2 for
> several years (3-4 guesstimate).
>
> Michael
>
I would guess it will take less time for IronPython, because most of
the libraries don't work in ipy anyway. There's fewer things to hold
you back at the 2 level. If IronPyt
Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Michael Foord
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One question. When IronPython 3 is started, targeting CPython 3.0, will you
actively
maintain IronPython 2 and IronPython 3 in parallel?
I think it's fair to say that this will be driven
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Michael Foord
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One question. When IronPython 3 is started, targeting CPython 3.0, will you
> actively
> maintain IronPython 2 and IronPython 3 in parallel?
I think it's fair to say that this will be driven mostly by the needs
of our c
I did all the ScriptSource/Compiled object caching but this singleton
ScriptEngine approach. I'll try that. Thanks.
Dody G.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Dino Viehland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> We don't have any support for object pooling built-in.
>
>
>
> Have you considered having 1 Sc
