RetroSearch Browse

Fri Nov 16 13:10:59 EST 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-November/155753.html

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 17:49, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> And Just to be clear, I totally support coming up with a totally stripped-down C API as I have outlined above as that shouldn't be controversial for any VM that wants to have a C-level API.

If a stripped down API like this is intended as "use this and you get
compatibility across multiple Python interpreters and multiple Python
versions" (essentially a much stronger and more effective version of
the stable ABI) then I'm solidly in favour (and such an API has clear
trade-offs that allow people to judge whether it's the right choice
for them).

Having this alongside the existing API, which would still be supported
for projects that need low-level access or backward compatibility (or
simply don't have the resources to change), but which will remain
CPython-specific, seems like a perfectly fine idea.

Paul

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-November/155753.html below:

[Python-Dev] Experiment an opt-in new C API for Python? (leave current API unchanged)