> > Hm, the "u" argument parser is a nasty one to catch. How likely is > > this to be the *only* reference to Unicode in a particular extension? > > It is not very likely but IMHO possible for e.g. extensions > which rely on the fact that wchar_t == Py_UNICODE and then do > direct interfacing to some other third party code. > > I guess one could argue that extension writers should check > for narrow/wide builds in their extensions before using Unicode. > > Since the number of Unicode extension writers is much smaller > than the number of users, I think that this apporach would be > reasonable, provided that we document the problem clearly in the > NEWS file. OK. I approve. > Hmm, that would probably not make UCS-4 builds very popular ;-) Do you have any reason to assume that it would be popular otherwise? :-) :-) :-) > > These warnings should use the warnings framework, by the way, to make > > it easier to ignore a specific warning. Currently it's a hard write > > to stderr. > > Using the warnings framework would indeed be a good idea (many older > extensions work just fine even with later API levels; the warnings > are annoying, though) ! Exactly. I'm not going to make the change, but it should be a two-liner in Python/modsupport.c:Py_InitModule4(). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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