Stackless Integration

Discussion in 'Python' started by Justin T., Aug 9, 2007.

  1. Justin T.

    Justin T. Guest

    Hi,

    I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    existence, so I assume there's a reason.

    Justin
    Justin T., Aug 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Justin T.

    Terry Reedy Guest

    "Justin T." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    | My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    | tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    | like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    | adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    | existence, so I assume there's a reason.

    First, which 'stackless'? The original continuation-stackless (of about 7
    years ago)? Or the more current tasklet-stackless (which I think is much
    younger than that)?

    The original added a feature Guido did not want (continuations) and
    required major changes to the core that would have make maintainance
    probably more difficult for most of the developers, including GvR. For
    more, see
    http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0219/

    Second, what do you mean by integration? The current tasklet version is, I
    am sure, as well integrated as Tismer can make it. Last I looked, there
    were warnings about possible incompatibilities, but perhaps these have been
    overcome. It is just not part of the stdlib. And as far as I know or
    could find in the PEP index, C. Tismer has never submitted a PEP asking
    that it be made so. Doing so would mean a loss of control, so there is a
    downside as well as the obvious upside of distribution.

    tjr
    Terry Reedy, Aug 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Justin T.

    Justin T. Guest

    On Aug 9, 8:57 am, "Terry Reedy" <> wrote:
    > First, which 'stackless'? The original continuation-stackless (of about 7
    > years ago)? Or the more current tasklet-stackless (which I think is much
    > younger than that)?
    >

    The current iteration. I can certianly understand Guido's distaste for
    continuations.

    >
    > overcome. It is just not part of the stdlib.

    And I wish it were! It wouldn't be such a pain to get to my developers
    then.

    > And as far as I know or
    > could find in the PEP index, C. Tismer has never submitted a PEP asking
    > that it be made so. Doing so would mean a loss of control, so there is a
    > downside as well as the obvious upside of distribution.

    That's true. Though, hopefully, the powers that be would allow him to
    maintain it while it's in the stdlib. Maybe we should file a PEP for
    him... :)

    Justin
    Justin T., Aug 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Justin T.

    Justin T. Guest


    > It's not Pythonic.
    >
    > Jean-Paul


    Ha! I wish there was a way to indicate sarcasm on the net. You almost
    got people all riled up!
    Justin T., Aug 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Justin T.

    Neil Cerutti Guest

    On 2007-08-09, Justin T. <> wrote:
    >
    >> It's not Pythonic.
    >>
    >> Jean-Paul

    >
    > Ha! I wish there was a way to indicate sarcasm on the net. You
    > almost got people all riled up!


    Sorry. There's NO WAY to show sarcasm on the net. ;)

    --
    Neil Cerutti
    Neil Cerutti, Aug 9, 2007
    #5
  6. Justin T.

    Aahz Guest

    In article <>,
    Neil Cerutti <> wrote:
    >On 2007-08-09, Justin T. <> wrote:
    >>JP Calderone:
    >>>
    >>> It's not Pythonic.

    >>
    >> Ha! I wish there was a way to indicate sarcasm on the net. You
    >> almost got people all riled up!

    >
    >Sorry. There's NO WAY to show sarcasm on the net. ;)


    "If sarcasm were posted to the Net, would anybody notice?" --JDN
    --
    Aahz () <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

    "And if that makes me an elitist...I couldn't be happier." --JMS
    Aahz, Aug 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Justin T.

    Terry Reedy Guest

    "Justin T." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | > And as far as I know or
    | > could find in the PEP index, C. Tismer has never submitted a PEP asking
    | > that it be made so. Doing so would mean a loss of control, so there is
    a
    | > downside as well as the obvious upside of distribution.
    | That's true. Though, hopefully, the powers that be would allow him to
    | maintain it while it's in the stdlib.

    A commitment to maintain is a requirement, not something allowed. By loss
    of control, I meant things like comforming to PSF's C and Python code style
    guide, responding to possible api change requests, and meeting doc and test
    suite requirement. There is also the policy of no-feature-additions with
    bug-fix releases (x.y.*). Is the development of stackless essentially
    finished? and the design 'frozen'?

    | Maybe we should file a PEP for| him... :)

    You could offer to help him, but only he can offer his code. Judging from
    discussions of other proposed additions, I expect that the PEP submitter(s)
    would have to substantively deal with questions like
    * Do the C stack manipulations interfere with other operations, either core
    or extensions? What test have you run to show that it does not.?
    * Is the functionality portable to Jython and IronPython? (No is a strike
    against acceptance.) If so, how easily?
    * Generators were, in a sense, an alternative to continuation-stackless.
    The 2.5 addition of generator.send(), making communication more easily
    2-way, makes generators more like tasklets. So why do we really need them?
    How about an alternative implementation built on generators?

    If you want some idea of the type of back and forth discussion that may be
    involved, look at the discussion of Eby's generic functions PEP (3124) on
    the Py-3000 list.

    Terry Jan Reedy
    Terry Reedy, Aug 10, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TheDustbustr

    stackless python: continuation module?

    TheDustbustr, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    453
    Christian Tismer
    Aug 6, 2003
  2. Christian Tismer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    305
    Christian Tismer
    Aug 14, 2003
  3. Christian Tismer

    Zope 2.7 running with Stackless 3.0

    Christian Tismer, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    315
    Christian Tismer
    Aug 28, 2003
  4. Shane Hathaway
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    317
    Michael Hudson
    Aug 29, 2003
  5. Jean-Paul Calderone

    Re: Stackless Integration

    Jean-Paul Calderone, Aug 9, 2007, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    256
    Bruno Desthuilliers
    Aug 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page