On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 00:50, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> Petr Viktorin schrieb am 10.08.2018 um 13:48:
> > Would this be better than a flag + raising an error on init?
>
> Ok, I've implemented this in Cython for now, to finally move the PEP-489
> support forward. The somewhat annoying drawback is
Petr Viktorin schrieb am 10.08.2018 um 13:48:
> Would this be better than a flag + raising an error on init?
Ok, I've implemented this in Cython for now, to finally move the PEP-489
support forward. The somewhat annoying drawback is that module reloading
previously *seemed* to work, simply
> Would this be better than a flag + raising an error on init?
Exactly. PEP 489 only says "Extensions using the new initialization
scheme are expected to support subinterpreters". What's wrong with
raising an exception when the module is initialized the second time?
Jeroen.
On 08/10/18 12:21, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Petr Viktorin schrieb am 10.08.2018 um 11:51:
On 08/10/18 11:21, Stefan Behnel wrote:
coming back to PEP 489 [1], the multi-phase extension module
initialization. We originally designed it as an "all or nothing" feature,
but as it turns out, the "all"
Petr Viktorin schrieb am 10.08.2018 um 11:51:
> On 08/10/18 11:21, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> coming back to PEP 489 [1], the multi-phase extension module
>> initialization. We originally designed it as an "all or nothing" feature,
>> but as it turns out, the "all" part is so difficult to achieve
On 08/10/18 11:21, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
coming back to PEP 489 [1], the multi-phase extension module
initialization. We originally designed it as an "all or nothing" feature,
but as it turns out, the "all" part is so difficult to achieve that most
potential users end up with "nothing". So,
Hi,
coming back to PEP 489 [1], the multi-phase extension module
initialization. We originally designed it as an "all or nothing" feature,
but as it turns out, the "all" part is so difficult to achieve that most
potential users end up with "nothing". So, my question is: could we split
it up so
