On 30/08/2010 17:35, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> Since the Linkage section of PEP 384 specifically states the >> availability of a generic "python3.dll" that dynamically redirects to >> the relevant "python3y.dll" to allow an extension module to run >> against any 3.2 or later Python version as a goal of the PEP, I would >> say that allowing mixing of C runtimes is definitely one of the PEP's >> goals. > It should be explicit about that then, and provide detail about why the > runtime is relevant to Windows programmers (and probably not relevant in > practice for *nix programmers). An extension compiled for one version of Python will be linked against the version of the C runtime used by that version of Python (if it is compiled with the same version of Visual Studio of course). If the extension binary is to remain compatible with a later version of Python, compiled against a different version of the C runtime, then it *must* be possible for multiple C runtimes to be loaded. If the stable ABI doesn't allow this then binaries will *still* have to be recompiled when we update the version of Visual Studio used to compile Python - defeating the purpose of the PEP. Right? If this is the case then I agree that it should be explicit in the PEP. All the best, Michael > -Barry > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100830/981c5be7/attachment.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