structmember.h lacks a 'T_SIZET' define in order to properly support struct fields of type 'size_t' within PyMemberDef. If this feature request is accepted, I can provide the patches. For 2.7, It would be nice to do: #define T_SIZET 20 /* size_t */ However, this value is already used in 3.0 for 'T_NONE'. Perhaps T_NONE should be backported to 2.7? To avoid future merge conflicts, I would vote for this definition: #define T_SIZET 21 /* size_t */
> In 2.6 and 3.0, we already have 'Py_ssize_t', see 'T_PYSSIZET' > definition on Include/structmember.h. I'm asking for 'size_t' support. Oops, sorry for the noise then.
> If this feature request is accepted, I can provide the patches. Well, that's not how things work: there isn't really a mechanism for 'accepting' a feature request. Even if there were, that wouldn't guarantee acceptance of a patch for that feature request. For what it's worth, I think that there's a good chance that a well- written patch for this feature request would be accepted: it seems like a potentially useful addition, and I can't immediately see why it would be objectionable or controversial, but I haven't looked at the issue very closely. I'd suggest that provided you don't get any negative feedback from the python-dev thread or from the comments in this issue in the next few days, then it's probably worth working on a patch. I'd also be happy to review such a patch if/when it's ready.
states "structmember.h lacks a 'T_SIZET' define in order to properly support struct fields of type 'size_t' within PyMemberDef." As we have managed without this feature for the last five years do we really need it now? What do we gain by implementing this?
