[Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python) (original) (raw)
Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 15:49:31 CET 2015
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
2015-02-13 15:36 GMT+01:00 Steve Dower <Steve.Dower at microsoft.com>:
I think posixmodule is a great candidate for splitting up by platform rather than function, as the whole file is packed with ifdef. It's really only lacking a volunteer to do it, but we could start here (ie. make posixmodulent.c for the Windows impl, etc.) and progressively move function implementations out over time? All the module setup and probably most of the Python layer can stay where it is.
More likely we're going to get bogged down discussing it again though, so if that happens my vote is to just make posixmodule.c 800 lines longer.
Since there are many ways to split this huge file, I agree that it's just fine to add these 800 lines and then think how the huge file can be splitted. It's a different topic.
Victor
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]