On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:04:31 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > 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...) > > I think it would be better if everything dealing with FILE* was a > macro rather than a function, yes. The definition of the limited API > is a chance to fix that without incurring the cost in backwards > incompatibility that would otherwise arise. Since we have that > opportunity, why not take it? Maybe I've missed your answer, but what would prevent the "inline" solution from working? (a macro with the result-as-a-pointer is quite ugly) 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
