On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 9:28 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > >> tp_reserved sounds fine. In 3.0.1, filling it with a function pointer >> should give no error, since that would be a binary-incompatible change. > > I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that in your > opinion it is safe to change the type of tp_reserved > from (cmpfunc *) to some other (dummy) function pointer?
Sounds like Martin is referring to your suggestion to raise an exception when initializing a type that has a non-NULL thing here. I agree with him. > I now realize (thanks to your message) that changing the type > to (void *) isn't entirely safe, since sizeof(void*) may be > different from sizeof(cmpfunc*) on some platforms. I don't think it matters on any platforms we care about. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
