RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 12 22:17:17 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129488.html

12.10.13 22:56, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:16 +0200
> Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 12.10.2013 20:20, schrieb Serhiy Storchaka:
>>> 12.10.13 21:04, Georg Brandl написав(ла):
>>>> in light of the recent thread about PEPs not forming part of the docs,
>>>> I've just pushed a change that allows to document C API elements
>>>> not part of the limited API as such.  It is done like this:
>>>>
>>>> ... c:function:: int _PyTuple_Resize(PyObject **p, Py_ssize_t newsize)
>>>>      :notlimited:
>>>>
>>>> I have not yet begun adding these to the documents; if someone wants to
>>>> help with this I am glad for volunteers.
>>>
>>> Why this is needed? The limited API is unstable and only developers of
>>> CPython can use it (but they can look in headers).
>>
>> Well, I may be reading PEP 384 wrongly, but the point is exactly to have a
>> *stable* API for *non-core* developers to rely upon, so that they can build
>> extensions that don't need to be recompiled for every version of Python.
>
> This is true.
>
> However, I find the proposed markup not very enlightening :-)
> I would prefer if "limited" APIs where marked with a :stableabi: tag.
>
> ("limited API" is really a bad synonym for "stable ABI" IMO)

Why not limited private API should be documented at all besides sources?

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129488.html below:

[Python-Dev] Support for marking limited API elements in C API docs