=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Walter_D=F6rwald?= <walter@livinglogic.de> writes:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> >>Any C function that uses Unicode objects in any way needs name
> >>mangling, because the storage layout of the Unicode objects
> >>changes.
> >
> >
> > Really? If I am only using the published APIs and not peeking
> > directly inside the Unicode object, why should I care about its
> > internal lay-out?
>
> That's what I meant with "using". Function that only pass
> unicode objects around don't need to know (as long as they pass
> the objects only to functions that themselves either "know"
> or "don't need to know" the layout).
>
> PyUnicode_Decode creates unicode objects, so I guess it needs
> to know.
*It* needs to know, yes. But surely the caller doesn't?
> > Shouldn't only functions whose signature uses PY_UNICODE_TYPE be
> > name-mangled? What am I missing?
>
> What about the functions that use the C macros (PyUnicode_AS_UNICODE
> etc.) directly or indirectly? Those functions will rely on the
> internal lay-out.
They're verboten in extension modules anyway, so I don't care.
Cheers,
M.
--
Like most people, I don't always agree with the BDFL (especially
when he wants to change things I've just written about in very
large books), ...
-- Mark Lutz, http://python.oreilly.com/news/python_0501.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