[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r43041 - python/trunk/Modules/_ctypes/cfield.c (original) (raw)
"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Fri Mar 17 19:26:29 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r43041 - python/trunk/Modules/_ctypes/cfield.c
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r43041 - python/trunk/Modules/_ctypes/cfield.c
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I think it's only fair that I ask the patch authors to complete the PEP, since the ssizet patch is causing extension authors enough trouble already.
Well, the PEP is complete as it stands. It's possible to provide more guidelines, but the specification part of it says precisely what I intend it to say. Also, the API documentation ought to be in the Python documentation, and, for these changes, it is.
If you want quick adoption of the changes, you have to make it as easy as possible for the authors to port their extensions to the new API. Otherwise, we'll end up having quite a large number of users who can't switch to Python 2.5 simply because their favorite extensions don't work with it.
I don't see how giving a complete list of all changed functions helps in any way.
It's also not good enough to simply suggest to ignore compiler warnings - this falls back on the extension authors and the quality of their code without them really having done anything wrong.
Sure. Compiler warnings should be corrected. That's why the compiler emits them. However, I don't see how this is related to the text of the PEP.
Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r43041 - python/trunk/Modules/_ctypes/cfield.c
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r43041 - python/trunk/Modules/_ctypes/cfield.c
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]