On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 at 10:40 Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> > Le 03/03/2016 19:38, Brett Cannon a écrit : > > > > Ignoring the potential to crash the interpreter (I personally don't care > > but some do), is the maintenance issue we have with ctypes (or at least > > that's my hang-up with it). I think we still have not figured out what > > code we have patched and so no one has been willing to update to a newer > > version of libffi. I think Zachary looked into it and got some distance > > but never far enough to feel comfortable with trying to update things. > > > > But I thought CFFI's ABI in-line solution matched what ctypes did? > > I think it does more or less, which is why precisely I would find it > gratuitous to deprecate ctypes. > > As for the maintenance problem, ok, but we might end up with the same > problems with cffi (both rely on libffi after all). > Personally, if I got my way we would deprecate ctypes in the stdlib and give it to the community to maintain (but in situations like this I rarely get my way :). We would then keep CFFI externally and just make sure that any new C API we developed makes sense for use by CFFI. And another idea I had for some new-fangled C API: no macros. That gives us a better ABI and it also makes AST analysis easier with tools like clang-analyzer.
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
