RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 12 23:01:17 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129495.html

Am 12.10.2013 22:30, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> 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.

Well, I tried to follow PEP 384 wording.

Georg

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129495.html below:

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