has <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob wrote:
>
>>>One more question: am I right in thinking that extension binaries
>>>aren't portable between major Python versions, e.g. an .so file
>>>built under Python 2.3 won't work on Python 2.4 and vice-versa?
>>
>>Correct, binary extensions are not portable
Bob wrote:
>>One more question: am I right in thinking that extension binaries aren't
>>portable between major Python versions, e.g. an .so file built under Python
>>2.3 won't work on Python 2.4 and vice-versa?
>
>Correct, binary extensions are not portable between major Python versions on
>ANY
On May 28, 2005, at 5:18 AM, has wrote:
> One more question: am I right in thinking that extension binaries
> aren't portable between major Python versions, e.g. an .so file
> built under Python 2.3 won't work on Python 2.4 and vice-versa?
Correct, binary extensions are not portable between
Hi folks,
One more question: am I right in thinking that extension binaries aren't
portable between major Python versions, e.g. an .so file built under Python 2.3
won't work on Python 2.4 and vice-versa?
Thanks,
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
