On Jun 24, 2010, at 02:28 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >On Jun 24, 2010, at 01:00 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > >>2010/6/24 Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org>: >>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >>> >>>>2010/6/24 Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org>: >>>>> Please let me know what you think. I'm happy to just commit this to the >>>>> py3k branch if there are no objections <wink>. I don't think a new PEP is >>>>> in order, but an update to PEP 3147 might make sense. >>>> >>>>How will this interact with PEP 384 if that is implemented? >>> I'm trying to come up with something that will work immediately while PEP >>> 384 >>> is being adopted. >> >>But how will modules specify that they support multiple ABIs then? > >I didn't understand, so asked Benjamin for clarification in IRC. > ><gutworth> barry: if python 3.3 will only load x.3.3.so, but x.3.2.so supports > the stable abi, will it load it? [14:25] ><barry> gutworth: thanks, now i get it :) [14:26] ><barry> gutworth: i think it should, but it wouldn't under my scheme. let me > think about it
So, we could say that PEP 384 compliant extension modules would get written without a version specifier. IOW, we'd treat foo.so as using the ABI. It would then be up to the Python runtime to throw ImportErrors if in fact we were loading a legacy, non-PEP 384 compliant extension. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
