[Python-Dev] Are undocumented functions part of the stable ABI? (original) (raw)
Jeroen Demeyer J.Demeyer at UGent.be
Wed Apr 11 04:46:18 EDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Are undocumented functions part of the stable ABI?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Python Bug Tracker
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2018-04-10 13:49, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If it's only a semantic level change in the way the macro gets expanded, then whether or not it needs an ABI version guard gets judged on a case-by-case basis, and in this particular case, my view would be that developers should be able to write extensions using the stable ABI that accept function subclasses on 3.8+, without having to require the use of 3.8+ to import their module.
I don't really get this paragraph, but in any case I decided to not change PyCFunction_Check in PEP 575. It doesn't seem worth the trouble as this macro is probably not often used anyway. Also, it's hard to guess what it should be replaced with: why would extensions be calling PyCFunction_Check()?
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Are undocumented functions part of the stable ABI?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Python Bug Tracker
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]