Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Martin v. Löwis <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > .. Furthermore, they all have names that are > unlikely to collide. Even if they get a _Py_ prefix, there could > still be a conflict. > My main interest in this patch are the type and %d to %zd change, but by throwing in the name change, I unintentionally made it more controversial. Would it help if I resubmit the patch without name changes or is this something that a committer can take care of if the patch is partially accepted? I already stated that I am only +0 on the name change and that "+" is mostly motivated by the fact that I already made the changes in my sandbox. Other than that, I don't think it matters. Let's stop here and refocus the type change. >> Even production builds contain a few such symbols which require >> the _Py or Py prefix (or need to be made static) - these are for >> Python 2.6 and 2.7: >> >> * asdl_int_seq_new >> * asdl_seq_new > > No. They don't require the Py_ prefix, because they already > have the asdl_ prefix. That's true, but asdl_ prefix is not a well-known prefix reserved for Python symbols. Someone who is debugging linker errors and sees something like "asdl_seq_new: symbol not found" will be hard pressed to realize that he/she forgot to link python library or linked an old version. Also a grep through nm output that Marc-Andre did is a good check to run from time to time and there is no reason to have false positives. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4850> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
