On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:38:33 +0200 "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > > On http://bugs.python.org/issue9778 you elaborated on what the PEP would > > entail in its current state: > > > > “No, vice versa. The PEP promises that the ABI won't change until > > Python 4. For any change that might break the ABI, either a > > backwards-compatible solution needs to be found, or the change be > > deferred to Python 4.” > > > > This sounds like it could be detrimental by blocking desired > > improvements (the aforementioned issue is a potential example of this). > > Notice that it's only potential: in the specific case, there would be > an ABI-compatible way of introducing wide hashes, using a second type > slot.
Yes, but it would add complication, and be potentially detrimental to performance. > If you think this is too restrictive, please point out specific aspects > that you think might need to change in the mid-term future. They should > then be excluded from the ABI. I have no a priori knowledge of what might happen in the future :) That said, looking at the PEP, I was wondering whether fields such as ob_type, ob_refcnt, ob_size have to be directly accessible, rather than through a macro-turned-into-a-function such as Py_REFCNT(). _______________________________________________ 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
