Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On 25 April 2010 02:40, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> My vote is in favor of simply always making "ssize_t" in Cython always >>>> mean Py_ssize_t in C. >>>> >>> This sounds very reasonable to me. >> +1. If CPython defines one as the other anyway, > > Yes, but only if the ssize_t is available. > >> it won't make a difference >> in Py2.5+, and older Python versions a) have 64 bit issues anyway and b) >> are already out of maintenance and thus will die out rather sooner than >> later. >> > > I'm still not sure that defining ssize_t is a good idea. As the type > is missing, we can expect that other API's could also define it. Then > you #include a header, and get conflicting definitions. > > Other way I would not object so strongly is that ssize_t in Cython > code actually emit Py_ssize_t in C code. Or perhaps better, invent our
This is what I was suggesting. > own __Pyx_ssize_t, and then: > > #ifndef __Pyx_ssize_t > #define __Pyx_ssize_t Py_ssize_t > #endif > > then people has a last chance to hack on our definition at C compile time. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
