On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > Thanks for pointing me to the that ticket. > > Looks like Guido already commented on this, so intobject.h could > be revived in some form.
I'm wondering how a resurrected intobject.h should be used: would Linux distributors (for example) package up intobject.h with the rest of the python-devel RPM/package/whatever so that Python extension modules could just include it directly, or would it be better to encourage the extension writers to make a copy of intobject.h to add to the source for their extension? In the first case, intobject.h would become a requirement for those extensions, so we'd presumably end up committed to either maintaining intobject.h for the lifetime of Python 3.x, or causing some pain when it does eventually get deleted. I quite like Benjamin's suggestion (in the issue tracker) of putting it in Doc/includes. > Since this file would only be used by extension modules and possibly > also include other helper macros, perhaps it'd be better to to rename > the file to py2compat.h or something along those lines ?! > > We could then also have a py2compat.c to hold corresponding > C code, e.g. to provide compatibility wrappers of new APIs that > implement different semantics in 3.x. This is also an interesting idea. Mark _______________________________________________ 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
