On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Please propose something. I think the hexversion *is* user-friendly,
>since it allows easy comparisons (Py_LIMITED_API+0 >= 0x0303).
>Users that run into missing symbols will, after inspection of the
>header file, easily know what to do.
+
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> This strikes me as in opposition to the Python-level policy of duck
>>> typing. Would it be more appropriate to, instead of asking if it's
>>> Python 3.3.0, ask if it's a Python th
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> This strikes me as in opposition to the Python-level policy of duck
>> typing. Would it be more appropriate to, instead of asking if it's
>> Python 3.3.0, ask if it's a Python that supports PY_FEATURE_FOOBAR? Or
>> would that result in a
> This strikes me as in opposition to the Python-level policy of duck
> typing. Would it be more appropriate to, instead of asking if it's
> Python 3.3.0, ask if it's a Python that supports PY_FEATURE_FOOBAR? Or
> would that result in an unnecessary proliferation of flag macros?
It would, hence I'
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Am 24.06.2012 01:11, schrieb Larry Hastings:
>> On 06/23/2012 03:08 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> On 23.06.2012 23:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Perhaps something more user-friendly than the hexversion?
>>> Please propose something. I
Am 24.06.2012 01:44, schrieb Chris Angelico:
> This strikes me as in opposition to the Python-level policy of duck
> typing. Would it be more appropriate to, instead of asking if it's
> Python 3.3.0, ask if it's a Python that supports PY_FEATURE_FOOBAR? Or
> would that result in an unnecessary prol
On 06/23/2012 04:44 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
+1 for the general idea and for using Py_LIMITED_API. I still like my
idea of a simple macro based on Include/patchlevel.h, for example:
#define Py_API_VERSION(major, minor, micro) \
(((m
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> +1 for the general idea and for using Py_LIMITED_API. I still like my
> idea of a simple macro based on Include/patchlevel.h, for example:
>
> #define Py_API_VERSION(major, minor, micro) \
> (((major) << 24) | ((minor) << 16) | ((micro)
Am 24.06.2012 01:11, schrieb Larry Hastings:
> On 06/23/2012 03:08 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> On 23.06.2012 23:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> Perhaps something more user-friendly than the hexversion?
>> Please propose something. I think the hexversion *is* user-friendly,
>
> +1 to the idea, an
On 06/23/2012 03:08 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
On 23.06.2012 23:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Perhaps something more user-friendly than the hexversion?
Please propose something. I think the hexversion *is* user-friendly,
+1 to the idea, and specifically to using hexversion here. (Though what
On 23.06.2012 23:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:31:07 +0200
> "Martin v. Löwis" 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 ne
Am 23.06.2012 23:41, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> Perhaps something more user-friendly than the hexversion?
IMHO 0x0303 for 3.0.0 is user-friendly enough. A macro like
PY_VERSION(3, 0, 0) could be added, too.
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pytho
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:31:07 +0200
"Martin v. Löwis" 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
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:31 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" 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 av
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" 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 av
15 matches
Mail list logo
