Received: by 10.142.240.17 with SMTP id n17mr426919wfh.3.1297955391070;
        Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:09:51 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: tinypy@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.142.97.18 with SMTP id u18ls2282272wfb.2.p; Thu, 17 Feb 2011
 07:09:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.239.6 with SMTP id m6mr132768wfh.54.1297955347141; Thu, 17
 Feb 2011 07:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:09:07
 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:09:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimhKr+3Jb4UHOo+_rs2pJ9O-TjJOrkHdFv_PCeV@mail.gmail.com>
X-IP: 69.172.71.162
References: <AANLkTi=b53v_kvfqnS4jeMhev0fkzpBhKWrLPC_GJXNV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimhKr+3Jb4UHOo+_rs2pJ9O-TjJOrkHdFv_PCeV@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5)
 Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <4e421edb-479d-482e-a921-78d54d37856c@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Main recode/rework thread
From: Taillon <g...@extral.net>
To: tinypy <tinypy@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Personally, I'm not interested in total recoding, as I don't have time
nor understanding to do so, now.
What's the problem with the current code, exactly, other than bugs and
some design flaws (as any software may have)?
Maybe we can list up all known issues, first.
Doe example, issue 27 test fails on TinyPy1.1, for example.

As for the implementation, I'd prefer slightly more compatibility (not
at the byte code level) in a few areas to reduce the work required for
porting some python codes (like python 2.c print statement, although I
don't like it much).




On Feb 17, 9:07=A0am, Tim Cas <darkuran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, to begin, I think we should decide whether TinyPy should be recoded
> from scratch or not; furthermore, exactly how much of "big" Python to
> implement, if and where to extend it (say, tail call optimization).
>
> Also one important question is, should bytecode try to remain compatiable
> with that of CPython? I think not (I'll give reasons later if anyone
> disagrees), but I want to hear your ideas.
>
> On 15 February 2011 22:08, Tim Cas <darkuran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is the main thread to discuss reorganizing the TinyPy project (rec=
ode