Issue 14198: Backport parts of the new memoryview documentation (original) (raw)

Issue14198

Created on 2012-03-05 09:30 by skrah, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Messages (4)
msg154934 - (view)	Author: Stefan Krah (skrah) *	Date: 2012-03-05 09:30
Nick's comment from #10181: "It occurs to me that one thing that *could* be backported to early versions are some of the documentation improvements on how to correctly handle the lifecycle of fields in Py_buffer. That gets messy though because memoryview doesn't behave nicely in those versions, so we'd be violating our own guidelines. Perhaps the relevant sections should be updated with a reference saying that the semantics have been cleaned up in 3.3, and if in doubt, try to follow the 3.3 documentation?"
msg156387 - (view)	Author: Kristján Valur Jónsson (kristjan.jonsson) *	Date: 2012-03-20 09:08
Stefan, I just want to point out this issue, if you are touching 2.7: http://bugs.python.org/issue10538 Do you think it merits being fixed?
msg156391 - (view)	Author: Stefan Krah (skrah) *	Date: 2012-03-20 09:23
Kristj??n Valur J??nsson <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > Stefan, I just want to point out this issue, if you are touching 2.7: > http://bugs.python.org/issue10538 > Do you think it merits being fixed? I think so. A patch would be appreciated, since the issue touches the old buffer interface (which I haven't looked at in detail at all).
msg218586 - (view)	Author: Stefan Krah (skrah) *	Date: 2014-05-14 23:04
This is actually a lot of work, I don't think I'll have time for it. Please just reopen if you think there's a chance that someone will take the task.