RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 12 22:40:52 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129493.html

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Code is not documentation.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129493.html below:

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