2017-07-13 15:21 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: > As far as I know, this isn't really why folks find the stable ABI hard > to switch to. Rather, I believe it's because switching to the stable > ABI means completely changing how you define classes to be closer to > the way you define them from Python code. > > That's why I like the idea of defining a "portable" API that *doesn't* > adhere to the "no public structs" rule - if we can restore support for > static class declarations (which requires exposing all the static > method structs as well as the object header structs, although perhaps > with obfuscated field names to avoid any dependency on the details of > CPython's reference counting model), I think such an API would have > dramatically lower barriers to adoption than the stable ABI does.
I am not aware of this issue. Can you give an example of missing feature in the stable ABI? Or maybe an example of a class definition in C which cannot be implemented with the stable ABI? Victor _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
