Christian Reis <kiko@async.com.br> writes: > > a) it is unlikely that patches are accepted from anybody but > > the author of the code, and > > b) it is unlikely that patches are implemented that provide huge > > chunks of the C library. > > I'm afraid I didn't quite understand these two points: > > a) Do you mean to say that the patch should be sent *to* the original > author of the locale code? The original author of the code that *calls* > atof/strtod? No. I said that the original author should send us the patches; we will only accept them from that author. > If the latter I can try and get Alex Larsson to submit the code. Is > written permission from the glib team, relicensing the code, not > acceptable enough, though? We would have to discuss this in the PSF. In general, we want the PSF to be owner of all contributed code, see http://www.python.org/psf/psf-contributor-agreement.html We had bad experience with contributions by non-authors in the past, and had to back out changes that we later found we had no right to distribute. > b) I'm unsure as to how we should proceed without offering alternative > versions of strtod/formatd (which is what the pystrtod.c file includes); > AFAICS, the current situation is *caused* by the libc versions not being > LC_NUMERIC-safe. Do you see an alternative? It might well be unimplementable. However, if you can find platform-specific routines that you can wrap with a small wrapper, falling back to strtod if such routines are not available, that might be a way out. For example, on glibc, you could use __strtod_l. Regards, Martin
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