RetroSearch Browse

Mon Nov 29 11:24:22 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/106126.html

On 29.11.2010 00:40, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I have now completed
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0384/
>
> Benjamin has volunteered to rule on this PEP.
>
> Please comment with any changes you want to see, or speak in
> favor or against this PEP.

I looked at a diff with r84330 from the py3k branch.

Extensions built with Py_LIMITED_API have the python version encoded in it's 
name.  Which abi name should be used for these extensions?

  - The m and u modifiers in the abi name are complimentary (?)
  - debug builds and Py_LIMITED_API are incompatible (?) and therefore
    the current name should be used?
  - For posix systems the implementation is currently part of the abi name,
    are Py_LIMITED_API extensions supposed to be compatible with e.g. PyPy?
    Should the LIMITED_API abi name include the implementation string?
  - Should the distutils support for LIMITED_API be part of the pep, or
    be implemented later?

In favour of the pep.

   Matthias

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/106126.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 384 final review