On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:21 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > Why don't we expose _PySet_Next() for Barry and leave it out of the public > > API > > for everyone else. > > That is stupid. If Barry wants a "private" PySet_Next function, he can > just implement it himself, no need to include it in the release. It > should be included only if it is meant to be public.
The one thing I'm trying to avoid is requiring us to patch Python when we move to 2.5. The most obvious and straightforward implementation of the 3 API calls are very simple wrappers around static functions defined in setobject.c (see the patch I posted). So if the patch gets rejected, then implementing them as a hack on standard Python 2.5 will require patching setobject.c or cracking open the PySet structure and /really/ violating the principle of data hiding. Neither option is very appealing. That's why I said in a previous message that I could live with this as a compromise, although I agree with your (Martin's) sentiment. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
