RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 3 17:04:43 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132221.html

On 02/03/2014 07:08 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 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.

For source compatibility, yes.  But I thought the point of the binary 
ABI was to allow compiling a single extension that worked unmodified 
with multiple versions of Python.  If we simply don't support that, then 
an ifdef would be fine.

//arry/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140203/09cf8b12/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132221.html below:

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