[Python-Dev] C99 (original) (raw)

Émanuel Barry vgr255 at live.ca
Sun Jun 5 22:42:12 EDT 2016

From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-_ _bounces+vgr255=live.ca at python.org] On Behalf Of tritium- list at sdamon.com Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 10:35 PM To: 'Sturla Molden'; python-dev at python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+tritium-_ _> list=sdamon.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Sturla Molden > Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2016 10:29 PM > To: python-dev at python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C99 > > Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > > > I'm talking about 3rd party extensions. Those may require source > > compatibility with older Python versions. All I'm asking for is to not > > require source-level use of C99 features. > > This of course removes a lot of its usefulness. E.g. macros cannot be > replaced by inline functions, as header files must still be plain C89. > > > Sturla Molden > I share Guido's priority there - source compatibility is more important than smoothing a few of C's rough edges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Guido meant that the third-party extensions might require their own code (not CPython's) to be compatible with versions of CPython < 3.6, and so PEP 7 shouldn't force them to break their own backwards compatibility.

Either way I'm +1 for allowing (but not enforcing) C99 syntax.

Maybe the next breaking change release this should be considered (python 4000... python 5000?)

Let's not!

-Emanuel

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list