RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 3 16:08:15 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132214.html

On Feb 03, 2014, at 06:43 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:

>But that only fixes part of the problem.  Our theoretical extension that
>wants to be binary-compatible with 3.3 and 3.4 still has a problem: how can
>they support signatures?  They can't give PyMethodDefEx structures to 3.3, it
>will blow up.  But if they don't use PyMethodDefEx, they can't have
>signatures.

Can't an extension writer #ifdef around this?  Yeah, it's ugly, but it's a
pretty standard approach for making C extensions multi-version compatible.

-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132214.html below:

[Python-Dev] The docstring hack for signature information has to go