On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, at 16:04, William Pickard wrote: > The goal as it stands is to make PyObject an opaque type (interpreted > to mean, "incomplete type"), but there is a blocking problem to > accomplishing that. > > Functions/Macros like PY_TYPE require a complete PyObject.
Is it acceptable if the performance hit only applies to external [not part of the python implementation] callers? The macro could be defined as to call an exported function from external code but as its current definition within the python implementation. I do think there's a much bigger problem, though... if PyObject is opaque, then extension modules cannot define their own types, since the definition of any extension type has to begin with PyObject_HEAD. It could be replaced by a "semi-opaque" definition of the same size and alignment, but would that solve whatever problem making PyObject opaque is intended to solve? _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/SCKWJFK4BFU7Q25O4OYSULYKRQQMZO4F/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
