[Python-Dev] sys.implementation (original) (raw)

R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com
Fri Apr 27 20:49:55 CEST 2012

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:40:43 -0700, Glenn Linderman <v+python at g.nevcal.com> wrote:

On 4/27/2012 12:34 AM, Eric Snow wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Barry Warsaw<barry at python.org> wrote: >> It's somewhat of a corner case, but I think a PEP couldn't hurt. The >> rationale section would be useful, at least. > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2012-April/014954.html

My conclusion is that sys.implementation clearly should not be part of the stdlib, but rather be part of the language implementation. Whether it then fits with the rest of what is in sys, or not, I am not qualified to say. If not, perhaps a new module name is warranted... perhaps "implementation" at the top level of the namespace.

IMO, there are two different things here that you are conflating(*): the implementation of the stdlib, and the stdlib API. sys.implementation would be a part of the API that any conforming implementation of python+stdlib would be required to implement.

We also have a goal of making as much of the implementation of the stdlib usable by any python implementation as possible, but as you say that is a work in progress.

There are, by the way, many things documented in the "library" documentation that are in fact provided by the language implementation itself. All of the fundamental types, for example.

--David

(*) the Oracle lawyers sometimes seem to be trying to get the judge and jury to make the same mistake.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list