On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 10:26:54AM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: >... > > Actually, those flags should only be used if you are attempting to maintain > > binary compatibility. > > > > At the point where you say "okay. binary compatibility is hereby broken.", > > then we go and remove the flags for the new structure members. > > I can't remember anyone saying something in that direction. Never said anyone did :-) ... just said, "*when* it happens, then we have some stuff that we can clean out." > > The last API bump was to 1009 for "Unicode API added". I'm not sure why > > Guido bumped it since the *addition* of an API shouldn't create binary > > incompatibility. > > He bumped it so that extensions can switch on the API number > and then decide whether to use the new API or not... there are > extensions out there which want to be compatible to 1.5.2 *and* > 2.0. E.g. my mx stuff has a special portability file (mxpyapi.h) > which is meant to achieve exactly this... Hrm. This is a bit weird then. Modules will produce errors when they really don't need to. I understand that it would be handy to say "hey, does the Unicode stuff exist", but that same mechanism is going to produce errors at module-init time when stuff is loaded. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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