RE: stackless implementation (was Re: New stacklessproposal)

> From: Christian Tismer 

> > >If you reduce it to this, then there is no benefit remaining
> > >from your being stackless, but maybe the pickling. :-)
> >
> > I don't understand.  If they don't call C extensions then they will 
> > have pure interpreter tasklets with maximum speed and 
> > minimum memory, 
> > all the benefits of taskless, right?
> 
> Yes, if you support it actively.
> What you were saying above sounded like just the
> Stackless 2.0 feature, stack moving only.
> Stackless 2.0 can be implemented for any interpreter
> as a pure extension module.

Sorry, my brain goes faster than my typing.

Yes, I am thinking of tasklets that are prepared for C extensions if
they happen, but run as pure interpreter tasklets until then.  There may
be some overhead to mark the stack and copy the stack stub, but that
doesn't require much memory or speed, right?  It only happens once on
tasklet creation.

I am excited about this.  I would never have dared take on something so
flexible and powerful if I didn't have you.  I will make sure you get
full credit.