RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 12 22:30:39 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129491.html

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:25:36 +0200
Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
> >> > ("limited API" is really a bad synonym for "stable ABI" IMO)
> >> 
> >> It's not a synonym: to get a stable ABI, you use the limited API.
> > 
> > I still don't like that name, because it doesn't convey any interesting
> > information. "Stable ABI" is immediately informative.
> 
> It can be changed, but we document the C API, not an ABI.

This is a rather mistaken statement. The only point of using the
"limited API" is because it provides the stable ABI. There is *zero*
other reason of caring about it.

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129491.html below:

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