Le mercredi 01 septembre 2010 à 22:43 +1000, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > After all, we don't usually try to workaround platform-specific > > bugs (not as a low level such as the C API level); at worse, we mention > > their existence in the docs. > > You persist in viewing the allowance of multiple C runtimes in a > single process as a bug instead of a feature.
No, I view the fact that you can't share FILE structures as a bug. I'm sure there would be ways to have multiple C runtimes loaded in memory with compatible FILE structures (for example, by versioning the FILE structure itself, or by embedding inside the FILE structure a set of function pointers, so that fread(), fwrite() and friends always get redirected to the proper implementation). Please consider this: even without relying on PEP 384, using FILE* is /already/ dangerous; because you might compile an extension with a different compiler version than Python was compiled with. So, if we were following you, we should rip out PyObject_Print() of the whole C API, not only the limited subset which is defined by PEP 384. (now I have nothing against completely ripping out PyObject_Print() if we find out that it's not really useful...) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
