Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> added the comment: Antoine: As the patch matured I would obviously provide documentation and examples and such. The point of submitting the patch in this form was a) so it was alive somewhere besides my hard drive, and b) to get some public review from the core team to ensure I was going in a valid direction.
As for mandatory vs purity: The whole purpose of the patch was to make PyTypeObject a private type; see "THE PROBLEM" / "THE SOLUTION". This requires that all the public interfaces take pointers. So within the context of what the patch is trying to accomplish, it's mandatory. The patch attempts to mitigate this as much as possible with the backwards-compatibility p.s. By "huge" I suspect you mean "large", though on first reading I thought you meant "fabulous". That's what I get for working with a big crew of 20-somethings. p.p.s. Did this patch get mentioned recently or something? After months of inactivity, there have been two nosy+ this week. p.p.p.s. I have not touched this patch since submitting it. The tribulations of working at a startup. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue5872> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
