I guess this is a continuation of #1335 and #1279. Another data point for the discussion.

I was looking for a lightweight python implementation to embed. I found micropython, and after playing with it a bit decided to look at embedding it.

I started by reading unix/main.c. Not too complicated, but tightly integrated. The global context variable makes me nervous.

I read (but did not try) the two patches above. In spite of the discussion about complexity around #1279, I feel more comfortable with it because it creates the feel of a library, which is exactly what I want.

If I can grab the source, build a static and/or dynamic lib, and shove it in a system directory with an accompanying pkg-config file I'm happy. I think the worries about distributions and packaging are unfounded; I regularly create packages for Archlinux and Debian-ish systems when official ones are not available. I think that if you generate the standard outputs (lib files, include file, canonical executable), packagers will take care of the rest.

Having to locate and path-to and build the micropython source when I'm building my own source, as #1335 implies I should, feels a lot more risky.

@pfalcon Mentioned that the code is the documentation, and I totally agree as long as there is a nice comment at the top outlining the big picture.

If micropython on unix built as a library and main.c included the key include file and linked against the library, I'd need nothing more.

Anyway, sorry I don't have time to offer a patch or something. Hopefully the additional opinion is helpful.