Victor Stinner wrote:
> Replacing macros with functions has little impact on backward
> compatibility. Most C extensions should still work if macros become
> functions.
As long as they are recompiled. However, they will lose a lot of performance.
Both these points have been mentioned somewhere, I'm certain, but it cannot be
stressed enough, IMHO.
>
> I'm not sure yet how far we should go towards a perfect API which
> doesn't leak everything. We have to move slowly, and make sure that we
> don't break major C extensions. We need to write tools to fully
> automate the conversion. If it's not possible, maybe the whole project
> will fail.
I'm wondering, how you suggest to measure "major". I believe, every C
extension, which is public and running in production somewhere, is major
enough.
Maybe "easiness to fix"? Lines of code?
Cheers,
--
> Rätselnd, was ein Anthroposoph mit Unterwerfung zu tun hat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Du gönnst einem keine einzige. -- Jean Claude und David Kastrup in dtl[...]
Dieses Wort gibt so viele Stellen für einen Spelling Flame her, und
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4