RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jan 27 22:07:58 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-January/107714.html

> I believe the intent this pep is aiming at is for the existing in
> memory structure to be compatible with already compiled binary
> extension modules without having to recompile them or change the APIs
> they are using.

No, binary compatibility is not achieved. ABI-conforming modules will
continue to work even under this change, but only because access to the
unicode object internal representation is not available to the
restricted ABI.

> Personally I don't care at all about preserving that level of binary
> compatibility, it has been convenient in the past but is rarely the
> right thing to do.  Of course I'd personally like to see PyObject
> nuked and revisited, it is too large and is probably not cache line
> efficient.

That's a different PEP :-)

Regards,
Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-January/107714.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 393: Flexible String Representation