Petr Viktorin schrieb am 02.02.22 um 10:22:
Moving off the internal (unstable) API would be great, but I don't think
Cython needs to move all the way to the limited API.
There are three "levels" in the C API:
- limited API, with long-term ABI compatibility guarantees
That's what "-DCYTHON_LIMITED_API -DPy_LIMITED_API=..." is supposed to do,
which currently fails for much if not most code.
- "normal" public API, covered by the backwards compatibility policy (users
need to recompile for every minor release, and watch for deprecation warnings)
That's probably close to what "-DCYTHON_LIMITED_API" does by itself as it
stands. I can see that being a nice feature that just deserves a more
suitable name. (The name was chosen because it was meant to also internally
define "Py_LIMITED_API" at some point. Not sure if it will ever do that.)
- internal API (underscore-prefixed names, `internal` headers, things
documented as private)
AFAIK, only the last one is causing trouble here.
Yeah, and that's the current default mode on CPython.
Maybe we should advertise the two modes more. And make sure that both work.
There are certainly issues with the current state of the "limited API"
implementation, but that just needs work and testing.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
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/ESEPW36K3PH4RM7OFVKAOE4QMBI2WYVU/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
