> On 26 Sep 2021, at 19:03, Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org> wrote: > > On 26/09/2021 13.07, jack.jan...@cwi.nl wrote: >> The problem with the stable ABI is that very few developers are targeting >> it. I’m not sure why not, whether it has to do with incompleteness of the >> ABI, or with issues targeting it easily and your builds and then having >> pip/PyPI do the right things with wheels and all that. I’ve been on the >> capi-sig mailing list since its inception in 2007, but the discussions are >> really going over my head. I don’t understand what the problems are that >> keep people from targeting the stable ABI (or the various other attempts at >> standardising extensions over Python versions). > > It takes some effort to port old extensions to stable ABI. Several old APIs > are not supported in stable ABI extensions. For example developers have to > port static type definitions to heap types. It's not complicated, but it > takes some effort.
The stable ABI is also not complete, although it should be complete enough for a lot of projects. A, fairly esoteric, issue I ran into is that it is currently not possible to define a class with a non-default meta class using the type-spec API (AFAIK), see #15870. And as you write “it takes some effort”, that alone likely reduces the amount of projects that migrate to the stable ABI esp. for projects that already have a CI/CD setup that creates binary wheels for you (for example using cibuildwheel). Ronald — Twitter / micro.blog: @ronaldoussoren Blog: https://blog.ronaldoussoren.net/
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/LFLOCVRO2UP2PKWTFUTAQ3EKO6NLMG4E/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
