On 01:59 pm, ncoghlan at gmail.com wrote: >On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:03 PM, <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com> wrote: >>On 12:43 pm, ncoghlan at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Mark Shannon <marks at dcs.gla.ac.uk> >>>wrote: >>>> >>>>OK, so UnicodeError_xxx is important for codecs, but surely this >>>>sort of >>>>argument could be made for lots of things. >>>>Don't forget that for each function added to the API, >>>>all other implementations have to support it forever. >>> >>>Other implementations that want to support CPython extensions should >>>focus their efforts on the limited API defined in PEP 384. That will >>>not only be a lot easier, it will also be less of a moving target. >> >>And will produce what kind of results? How many extension libraries >>work >>with this subset? > >Right now? Very few, given the changes to the way types need to be >created. But prioritising it will speed convergence over time as more >extension modules cut over to it for the stable ABI benefits. > >And, since the C API has never been anywhere near as tightly >controlled as the language definition, alternative implementations are >going to garner more sympathy if they restrict their concerns to the >growth of the stable ABI rather than worrying about an implementation >detail of CPython. Sympathy, perhaps. But that doesn't mean people will drop everything and rewrite their extension modules. Jean-Paul
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