RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jul 5 05:31:02 EDT 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154368.html

On 2018-07-05 05:41, INADA Naoki wrote:
> And stabilizing calling convention is prerequirements of designing new
> calling APIs.

I don't see why. I made my PEP with the assumption that the 
METH_FASTCALL calling convention won't change. As far as I know, nobody 
advocated for changing it. But even if we decide to change 
METH_FASTCALL, I could trivially adapt my PEP.

> That's why I suggest discussing METH_FASTCALL first.

I certainly agree that it's a good idea to discuss METH_FASTCALL, but I 
still don't see why that should block the discussion of PEP 576/580.

I can understand that you want to wait to *implement* PEP 576/580 as 
long as METH_FASTCALL isn't public. But we should not wait to *discuss* 
those PEPs.

Jeroen.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154368.html below:

[Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580