Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140203/09cf8b12/attachment.html below:
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/03/2014 07:08 AM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140203100815.0959f878@limelight.wooz.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Feb 03, 2014, at 06:43 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But that only fixes part of the problem. Our theoretical extension that
wants to be binary-compatible with 3.3 and 3.4 still has a problem: how can
they support signatures? They can't give PyMethodDefEx structures to 3.3, it
will blow up. But if they don't use PyMethodDefEx, they can't have
signatures.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Can't an extension writer #ifdef around this? Yeah, it's ugly, but it's a
pretty standard approach for making C extensions multi-version compatible.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
For source compatibility, yes. But I thought the point of the
binary ABI was to allow compiling a single extension that worked
unmodified with multiple versions of Python. If we simply don't
support that, then an ifdef would be fine.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>
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