Jim Jewett schrieb:
> On 12/3/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2007 12:12 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> Sure. However, you could also use
>> > >> _testcapi.PY_SSIZE_T_MAX, or
>> > >> ctypes.sizeof(ctypes.py_object).
>
>> > > Much less intuitive though.
>
>> > Actually, I find the ctypes version a more direct answer to the
>> > question "what is the address space?".
>
> (1) Is there a valid use case for this that needs to be supported
> with the "same code" across distributions before ctypes?
> (2) Is "without ctypes" still a supported build configuration,
> because of the crash-risks? More narrowly, is can we assume that they
> don't need the exact size/address unless they're doing extensions that
> have at least as much risk as ctypes?
Not sure about these. However, there is still struct.calcsize("P") and
variants thereof.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
