[Python-Dev] PEP 575, 576, 579 and 580 (original) (raw)
Mark Shannon mark at hotpy.org
Sat Jul 7 09:38:39 EDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Call for prudence about PEP-572
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 575, 576, 579 and 580
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi,
We seem to have a plethora of PEPs where we really ought to have one (or none?).
Traditionally when writing a new piece of software, one gathered requirements before implementing the code. Let us return to that venerable tradition.
IMO, mailing lists are a terrible way to do software design, but a good way to gather requirements as it makes less likely that someone will be forgotten.
So, let us gather the requirements for a new calling API.
Here are my starting suggestions:
- The new API should be fully backwards compatible and shouldn't break the ABI
- The new API should be used internally so that 3rd party extensions are not second class citizens in term of call performance.
- The new API should not prevent 3rd party extensions having full introspection capabilities, supporting keyword arguments or another feature supported by Python functions.
- The implementation should not exceed D lines of code delta and T lines of code in total size. I would suggest +200 and 1000 for D and T respectively (or is that too restrictive?).
- It should speed up CPython for the standard benchmark suite.
- It should be understandable.
What am I missing? Comments from the maintainers of Cython and other similar tools would be appreciated.
Cheers, Mark.
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Call for prudence about PEP-572
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 575, 576, 579 and 580
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]