> From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev- > bounces+vgr255=live...@python.org] On Behalf Of tritium- > l...@sdamon.com > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 10:35 PM > To: 'Sturla Molden'; python-dev@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C99 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+tritium- > > list=sdamon....@python.org] On Behalf Of Sturla Molden > > Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2016 10:29 PM > > To: python-dev@python.org > > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C99 > > > > Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > I'm talking about 3rd party extensions. Those may require source > > > compatibility with older Python versions. All I'm asking for is to not > > > require source-level use of C99 features. > > > > This of course removes a lot of its usefulness. E.g. macros cannot be > > replaced by inline functions, as header files must still be plain C89. > > > > > > Sturla Molden > > > > I share Guido's priority there - source compatibility is more important than > smoothing a few of C's rough edges.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Guido meant that the third-party extensions might require their own code (not CPython's) to be compatible with versions of CPython < 3.6, and so PEP 7 shouldn't force them to break their own backwards compatibility. Either way I'm +1 for allowing (but not enforcing) C99 syntax. > Maybe the next breaking change release > this should be considered (python 4000... python 5000?) Let's not! -Emanuel _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
