Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > As the patch matured I would obviously provide documentation > and examples and such.
What I meant is that it's difficult for me (and perhaps others) to assess how much more practical your patch makes it to create C types. > This > requires that all the public interfaces take pointers. So within the > context of what the patch is trying to accomplish, it's mandatory. Hmm. That public interfaces take pointers is one thing, but that doesn't mean the PyTypeObject structure itself must be concealed. It could be exposed as an implementation detail. Please note that your approach will make it difficult for third-party C extensions to remain compatible accross several Python versions (those before and after the API switch). While we sometimes change or deprecate APIs, we never do it as massively as that (even the 2.x -> 3.x transition is quite gentle). > 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. I meant "large" indeed :) > p.p.s. Did this patch get mentioned recently or something? After months > of inactivity, there have been two nosy+ this week. Well, a nosy+ bumps up the issue at the top of the recently modified issues, which means other people notice it as well. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
