On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:15:44 +0100 Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote: > On 2019-02-16 00:37, Eric Snow wrote: > > One thing that would help simplify changes > > in this area is if PyInterpreterState were defined in > > Include/internal. > > How would that help anything? I don't like the idea (in general, I'm not > talking about PyInterpreterState specifically) that external modules > should be second-class citizens compared to modules inside CPython. > > If you want to break the undocumented API, just break it. I don't mind. > But I don't see why it's required to move the include to > Include/internal for that.
This sounds like a reasonable design principle: decree the API non-stable and prone to breakage (it already is, anyway), don't hide it. It's true that in the PyInterpreterState case specifically, there doesn't seem much worthy of use by third-party libraries. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
