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

Eric Snow ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com
Thu May 10 02:16:35 CEST 2012

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

On May 08, 2012, at 09:03 PM, Eric Snow wrote:

Definitely tangled.  So, sys.implementation.version and sys.implementation.langversion?  Also, my inclination is to not have a sys.version equivalent in sys.implementation for now, in the interest of keeping things as bare-bones as possible to start. I think it would be fine, if PEP 421 was clear about the semantics of sys.implementation.version and was silent about trying to disentangle the semantics of sys.version.  IOW, the PEP can say that the semantics of sys.version are fuzzy, but not try to clear it up.  Then it would be explicit (as it already is) that sys.implementation.version describes the version of the implementation, not the version of the language compliance. If the latter is useful later, then it can use the PEP 421 described process to propose a new sys.implementation value that describes a language compliance variable.

Whoops. I meant that I'm okay with having sys.implementation.version and sys.implementation.lang_version, both as analogs to sys.version_info. My inclination is to not include the analog to sys.version. However, with the way that you put it, I think you're right that we could put off the lang_version attribute for later.

 * I've said before that I think the keys in sys.implementation should be locked down (i.e. not writable).

I've been on and off about this.  It's certainly not too hard to do, it makes sense, and I don't see a lot of reason not to do it.  I'll give it a go. Maybe it doesn't matter.  We're all adults here.  I think there are two good choices.  Either the PEP explicitly describes sys.implementation as immutable, or it is silent about it.  IOW, I don't think the PEP should explicitly allow sys.implementation to be mutable.

Agreed.

-eric

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list