Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > Python should define *only* __EXTENSIONS__, not the others, as Zooko > already mentioned, for the reasons he mentioned. I'm not sure how you > got a different impression from what I or he said.
Ok, so we can ignore __EXTENSIONS__ for the discussion. Then you were arguing that defining _XOPEN_SOURCE is wrong if the value is less than 600. What about setting the value to 600 or larger? Is that also wrong, and if so, why? [Aside: I think the Solaris comment on using C99 with XOPEN applications is misguided. Compiling such applications with C99 is *not* invalid. While POSIX specified that it is based on C89, the original POSIX spec is silent on what the semantics is if a different C implementation is used - so at worst, the behavior of such applications is undefined. However, it is actually better than that: The C99 spec defines clearly what the semantics of all the functions are, and thus what the difference in behavior is. So for a specific POSIX application, the effect of compiling it with a C99 compiler is well-defined, and most applications should work just fine (if they compile at all). In a sense, Solaris is doing the same thing to its applications what you are criticizing here as Python doing to its extension modules: making claims of how compatible they are wrt. certain standards.] _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1759169> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com