On 01:59 pm, ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:03 PM, <exar...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
On 12:43 pm, ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Mark Shannon <ma...@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
wrote:
OK, so UnicodeError_xxx is important for codecs, but surely this
sort of
argument could be made for lots of things.
Don't forget that for each function added to the API,
all other implementations have to support it forever.
Other implementations that want to support CPython extensions should
focus their efforts on the limited API defined in PEP 384. That will
not only be a lot easier, it will also be less of a moving target.
And will produce what kind of results? How many extension libraries
work
with this subset?
Right now? Very few, given the changes to the way types need to be
created. But prioritising it will speed convergence over time as more
extension modules cut over to it for the stable ABI benefits.
And, since the C API has never been anywhere near as tightly
controlled as the language definition, alternative implementations are
going to garner more sympathy if they restrict their concerns to the
growth of the stable ABI rather than worrying about an implementation
detail of CPython.
Sympathy, perhaps. But that doesn't mean people will drop everything
and rewrite their extension modules.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
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
