da-woods schrieb am 04.11.23 um 14:45:
I'm a bit late in replying to this but here are some unordered thoughts.
* I'm fairly relaxed about using `Py_BUILD_CORE` if useful - I think we
mostly do have good fallback paths for most things so can adapt quickly
when stuff changes.
I'm not entirely relaxed about it, but I agree that the fallbacks should
usually make it easy to keep things working also after larger changes in
CPython.
* CYTHON_USE_CPYTHON_CORE_DETAILS sounds reasonable, but it's yet another
variation to test.
True.
* I wonder if fixing up the limited API implementation should be higher
priority than creating a third level been "full" and "limited API".
I think there's potential for all three. Basically modes "aggressively
fast", "highly compatible" and "version independent". The latter is what
the Stable ABI together with the Limited API should give you.
* I recall we were planning to ditch c89 as a strict requirement after 3.0?
Incompatibility with C++ might be more of an issue though.
Yes. C++ is not an issue for CPython, so their internal header files are
not tested with C++ at all. That's the highest potential for breakage, if
we accept to generate C99 from Cython 3.1 onwards.
We should make sure that we use "-std=c89" in at least one Cython 3.0 test
setup, BTW.
* Even so, if there's a good way of turning it off then we could say: "if
you want strict c89 support then you can't use
CYTHON_USE_CPYTHON_CORE_DETAILS" and people would always have options.
That could be part of it, yes.
* Waiting and seeing may be a good option for now.
I agree. This still seems best for now, especially given the amount of
recent changes in the C-API. Let's wait for those to settle down, at least.
Thanks everyone for your opinions and comments!
Stefan
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
