On 4/13/06, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Does this mean you would like to see this patch checked in to 2.5? > > Yes.
Ok, I checked this in to 2.5 (minus the syntax error). > I also think that changing the type from signed to unsigned > by backporting the configure fix will only make things safer > for the user, since extensions will probably not even be aware > of the fact that Py_UNICODE could be signed (it has always been > documented to be unsigned). > > So +1 on backporting the configure test fix to 2.4. I'll leave this decision to Martin or someone else, since I'm not familiar with the ramifications. Since it was documented as unsigned, I think it's reasonable to consider changing. Though it could create signed-ness warnings in other modules. I'm not sure but it's possible it could create problems for C++ compilers since they are pickier. n _______________________________________________ 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
