New submission from Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net>:
Here is the history of the issue per Martin v. Löwis on python-dev: """ This was added with ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r36221 | bcannon | 2004-06-24 03:38:47 +0200 (Do, 24. Jun 2004) | 3 Zeilen Add compilation of timemodule.c with datetimemodule.c to get __PyTime_DoubleToTimet(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So it's clearly intentional. I doubt its desirable, though. If only __PyTime_DoubleToTimet needs to be duplicated, I'd rather put that function into a separate C file that gets included twice, instead of including the full timemodule.c into datetimemodule.c. """ -- "Sharing functions between C extension modules in stdlib", http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-June/100587.html I hope this is non-controversial, but I would like someone to comment on the choice of file name. I chose _timefunc.c to make it more distinguishable from module file names. Ideally, however I would like to see this in either _time.h/_time.c pair (both in Module dir like _math.{c,h}) or in pytime.h/pytime.c (like pymath.{c,h}). Marking this as "resource usage" because the patch will result in smaller size of datetime module. ---------- assignee: belopolsky messages: 107929 nosy: belopolsky, brett.cannon, loewis, mark.dickinson priority: normal severity: normal stage: patch review status: open title: Separate compilation of time and datetime modules type: resource usage versions: Python 3.2 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9012> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
