On 23.06.2012 23:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:31:07 +0200 > "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> I've been thinking about extensions to the stable ABI. On the one hand, >> introducing new API can cause extension modules not to run on older >> Python versions. On the other hand, the new API may well be stable in >> itself, i.e. remain available for all coming 3.x versions. >> >> As a compromise, I propose that such API can be added, but extension >> authors must explicitly opt into using it. To define their desired >> target Python versions, they need to set Py_LIMITED_API to the >> hexversion of the first Python release they want to support. > > Perhaps something more user-friendly than the hexversion?
Please propose something. I think the hexversion *is* user-friendly, since it allows easy comparisons (Py_LIMITED_API+0 >= 0x03030000). Users that run into missing symbols will, after inspection of the header file, easily know what to do. We could require a second macro, but users will already have to define Py_LIMITED_API, so not making them define a second macro is also more friendly. Plus, with the hexversion, we can add stuff to a bugfix release, such a annoying omissions (e.g. the omission of the _SizeT functions, which I missed since I didn't compile the headers with PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN when generating the function list). Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
