Well, I find the argument convincing enough and it is quite safe. I am willing to make the necessary patches and it would be quite convenient to be able to use the C API in Python 2.3 as well. So I'm in favor but I'll bow to the greater wisdom of the Python development community since I really am not significantly involved. :-) Guido van Rossum wrote: >>It's quite arguably a bugfix, since datetime.h in 2.3.4 exposes things >>that can't possibly be used outside of datetimemodule.c (the datetime >>type objects are referenced in the header, but not exported in a >>usable way). Anthony Tuininga's patch to *finish* (not really add) >>the datetime C API is a low-risk change regardless: it doesn't change >>any existing functionality, it just finishes the job of exposing it to >>C coders, and adds some new macros for convenience. >> >>Now if some platform header file has macros with names like >> >> PyDateTime_FromTimestamp >>or >> PyDelta_FromDSU >> >>then adding these macros to datetime.h could cause new problems. But >>platform header files don't have macros with names like those (if they >>did, we would have bumped into it while developing 2.4). > > > Hm, Anthony, what do you think now? (Disregard my previous mail, I was > confused by multiple logical threads mixed into the same > conversation.) > > --Guido -- Anthony Tuininga anthony at computronix.com Computronix Distinctive Software. Real People. Suite 200, 10216 - 124 Street NW Edmonton, AB, Canada T5N 4A3 Phone: (780) 454-3700 Fax: (780) 454-3838 http://www.computronix.com
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