On 25 April 2010 02:40, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> My vote is in favor of simply always making "ssize_t" in Cython always >>> mean Py_ssize_t in C. >>> >> >> This sounds very reasonable to me. > > +1. If CPython defines one as the other anyway,
Yes, but only if the ssize_t is available. > it won't make a difference > in Py2.5+, and older Python versions a) have 64 bit issues anyway and b) > are already out of maintenance and thus will die out rather sooner than later. > I'm still not sure that defining ssize_t is a good idea. As the type is missing, we can expect that other API's could also define it. Then you #include a header, and get conflicting definitions. Other way I would not object so strongly is that ssize_t in Cython code actually emit Py_ssize_t in C code. Or perhaps better, invent our own __Pyx_ssize_t, and then: #ifndef __Pyx_ssize_t #define __Pyx_ssize_t Py_ssize_t #endif then people has a last chance to hack on our definition at C compile time. What do you think about this? -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL) Predio CONICET-Santa Fe Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011) Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169 _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
