Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> added the comment:
> If we reintroduce it, why not put it back at its previous place, to provide > ABI compatibility? I agree. If compatibility matters here, then we should add new elements at the end. > First of all, we longer care about ABI compatibility of PyTypeObject. Oh? In that case, let's just remove the reserved/deprecated field :) > Second, it is extremely unlikely ... As a rule, "extremely unlikely" isn't unlikely enough for a product with as much reach as Python has. Even if something only happens to 0.1% of users, that's still thousands of people. You have to be prepared to justify hurting those people - potentially to their faces - to back up ideas like this. (And FWIW, yes, I'm happy to explain to people that their pre-generated Cython code broke because Cython had a bug that has since been fixed.) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue37250> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
