>>>>> "CT" == Christian Tismer <tismer@tismer.com> writes:
CT> Maybe I'm repeating myself, but I'd like to clarify: I do not
CT> plan to introduce anything that forces anybody to change her
CT> code. This is all about extending the current capabilities.
The problem with this position is that C code that uses the old APIs
interferes in odd ways with features that depend on stackless,
e.g. the __xxx__ methods.[*] If the old APIs work but are not
compatible, we'll end up having to rewrite all our extensions so that
they play nicely with stackless.
If we change the core and standard extensions to use stackless
interfaces, then this style will become the standard style. If the
interface is simple, this is no problem. If the interface is complex,
it may be a problem. My point is that if we change the core APIs, we
place a new burden on extension writers.
Jeremy
[*] If we fix the type-class dichotomy, will it have any effect on
the stackful nature of some of these C calls?
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