I think posixmodule is a great candidate for splitting up by platform rather than function, as the whole file is packed with ifdef. It's really only lacking a volunteer to do it, but we could start here (ie. make posixmodule_nt.c for the Windows impl, etc.) and progressively move function implementations out over time? All the module setup and probably most of the Python layer can stay where it is.
More likely we're going to get bogged down discussing it again though, so if that happens my vote is to just make posixmodule.c 800 lines longer. Cheers, Steve Top-posted from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Antoine Pitrou<mailto:solip...@pitrou.net> Sent: 2/13/2015 5:44 To: python-dev@python.org<mailto:python-dev@python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python) On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:35:00 -0500 Ben Hoyt <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If we go ahead with the all C approach, I'd be in favour of > refactoring a little and putting the new scandir code into a separate > C file. There are two ways to do this: a) sticking with a single > Python module and just referencing the non-static functions in > scandir.c from posixmodule.c, or b) sharing some functions but making > _scandir.c its own importable module. Option (a) is somewhat simpler > as there's not module setup stuff twice, but I don't know if there's a > precedent for that way of doing things. The _io module already does things that way (the (a) option, I mean). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/steve.dower%40microsoft.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
