On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:04:31 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > > Please consider this: even without relying on PEP 384, using FILE* > > is /already/ dangerous; because you might compile an extension with a > > different compiler version than Python was compiled with. So, if we were > > following you, we should rip out PyObject_Print() of the whole C API, > > not only the limited subset which is defined by PEP 384. > > > > (now I have nothing against completely ripping out PyObject_Print() if > > we find out that it's not really useful...) > > I think it would be better if everything dealing with FILE* was a > macro rather than a function, yes. The definition of the limited API > is a chance to fix that without incurring the cost in backwards > incompatibility that would otherwise arise. Since we have that > opportunity, why not take it? Maybe I've missed your answer, but what would prevent the "inline" solution from working? (a macro with the result-as-a-pointer is quite ugly) Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4