Daniel Stutzbach <dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com> added the comment:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Martin v. Löwis <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > Did you mean to include the hunk from msg105295 as part of the patch? > If so, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of the patch? My intention is to offer two compilation modes to extension authors: 1) A mode that defines Py_UNICODE, PyUnicodeObject, and various unsafe functions and macros. 2) A mode that does not define them. In mode #1, importing the module should fail if the Unicode settings are mismatched. I had meant to include the hunk from msg105295 only in mode #1. Right now I favor your idea of generating a runtime error when loading the module, instead of a linker error. Assuming we go that route, the hunk from msg105295 will not be used at all. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8654> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
