-cc: python-3000
I believe those APIs are already there in the existing interface. Why does
that concern you?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Lisandro Dalcin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you completelly sure of adding those guys: PyBytes_InternXXX ???
>
>
> On 6/1/08, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:37 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2008-05-30 00:57, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> * Why can't we have both PyString *and* PyBytes exposed in 2.x,
> > >>> with one redirecting to the other ?
> > >>
> > >> We do have that - the PyString_* names still work perfectly fine in
> 2.x.
> > >> They just won't be used in the Python core codebase anymore -
> everything in
> > >> the Python core will use either PyBytes_* or PyUnicode_* regardless
> of which
> > >> branch (2.x or 3.x) you're working on. I think that's a good thing
> for ease
> > >> of maintenance in the future, even if it takes people a while to get
> their
> > >> heads around it right now.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough:
> > >
> > > Why can't we have both PyString *and* PyBytes exposed as C
> > > APIs (ie. visible in code and in the linker) in 2.x, with one
> redirecting
> > > to the other ?
> > >
> > >>> * Why should the 2.x code base turn to hacks, just because 3.x wants
> > >>> to restructure itself ?
> > >>
> > >> With the better explanation from Greg of what the checked in approach
> > >> achieves (i.e. preserving exact ABI compatibility for PyString_*,
> while
> > >> allowing PyBytes_* to be used at the source code level), I don't see
> what
> > >> has been done as being any more of a hack than the possibly more
> common
> > >> "#define <oldname> <newname>" (which *would* break binary
> compatibility).
> > >>
> > >> The only things that I think would tidy it up further would be to:
> > >> - include an explanation of the approach and its effects on API and
> ABI
> > >> backward and forward compatibility within 2.x and between 2.x and 3.x
> in
> > >> stringobject.h
> > >> - expose the PyBytes_* functions to the linker in 2.6 as well as 3.0
> > >
> > > Which is what I was suggesting all along; sorry if I wasn't
> > > clear enough on that.
> > >
> > > The standard approach is that you provide #define redirects from the
> > > old APIs to the new ones (which are then picked up by the compiler)
> > > *and* add function wrappers to the same affect (to make linkers,
> > > dynamic load APIs such ctypes and debuggers happy).
> > >
> > >
> > > Example from pythonrun.h|c:
> > > ---------------------------
> > >
> > > /* Use macros for a bunch of old variants */
> > > #define PyRun_String(str, s, g, l) PyRun_StringFlags(str, s, g, l,
> NULL)
> > >
> > > /* Deprecated C API functions still provided for binary compatiblity
> */
> > >
> > > #undef PyRun_String
> > > PyAPI_FUNC(PyObject *)
> > > PyRun_String(const char *str, int s, PyObject *g, PyObject *l)
> > > {
> > > return PyRun_StringFlags(str, s, g, l, NULL);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> >
> > Okay, how about this? http://codereview.appspot.com/1521
> >
> > Using that patch, both PyString_ and PyBytes_ APIs are available using
> > function stubs similar to the above. I opted to define the stub
> > functions right next to the ones they were stubbing rather than
> > putting them all at the end of the file or in another file but they
> > could be moved if someone doesn't like them that way.
> >
> >
> > > I still believe that we should *not* make "easy of merging" the
> > > primary motivation for backporting changes in 3.x to 2.x. Software
> > > design should not be guided by restrictions in the tool chain,
> > > if not absolutely necessary.
> > >
> > > The main argument for a backport needs to be general usefulness
> > > to the 2.x users, IMHO... just like any other feature that
> > > makes it into 2.x.
> > >
> > > If merging is difficult then this needs to be addressed, but
> > > there are more options to that than always going back to the
> > > original 2.x trunk code. I've given a few suggestions on how
> > > this could be approached in other emails on this thread.
> >
> >
> > I am not the one doing the merging or working on merge tools so I'll
> > leave this up to those that are.
> >
> > -gps
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-Dev mailing list
> > Python-Dev@python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> > Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/dalcinl%40gmail.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Lisandro Dalcín
> ---------------
> Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC)
> Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC)
> Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
> PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina
> Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
