On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:46:07 -0400, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> > wrote:
[...] >>> Digging down into C should be unnecessary to explain Python. >> >> >> huh? You have to be kidding. Why do you suppose we want it to be >> open-sourced? Use the force Luke, read the source. If you really >> want to know how Python is working you *must* dig down into the C code >> which implements it. The folks who document Python should be able to >> tell us enough to know how to use the language, but to really 'know' >> you need the implementation source. >> >> > Reading the CPython sources will show you how CPython works under the > hood, but it has nothing to do with how Python works. There are lots of > things that CPython does that "Python" does not. For instance, the GIL > is not a part of Python. Reference counting is not a part of Python. > Caching small integers and strings is not a part of Python. Why not read > the Jython sources instead of the CPython? It's the same language, after > all. More importantly, Python need not be implemented at all. If you're stuck on a desert island without electricity, you could simulate the effect of running any arbitrary Python code merely by understanding the semantics of high-level Python code, without caring the slightest about pointers at the C implementation level, or bit flipping at the hardware level, or von Neumann machines, or ref counting, or garbage collection, or any of a million other implementation details. All you need understand is the declared semantics of the language. Surely I can't be the only one who sometimes tries to work out a tricky bit of Python code by hand-simulating it on pencil and paper? -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
