da-woods schrieb am 04.11.23 um 14:45:
I'm a bit late in replying to this but here are some unordered thoughts.
* I'm fairly relaxed about using `Py_BUILD_CORE` if useful - I think we
mostly do have good fallback paths for most things so can adapt quickly
when stuff changes.
I'm not
I'm a bit late in replying to this but here are some unordered thoughts.
* I'm fairly relaxed about using `Py_BUILD_CORE` if useful - I think we
mostly do have good fallback paths for most things so can adapt quickly
when stuff changes.
* CYTHON_USE_CPYTHON_CORE_DETAILS sounds reasonable, but
Thank you for your comments so far.
Stefan Behnel schrieb am 29.10.23 um 22:06:
I seriously start wondering if we shouldn't just define
"Py_BUILD_CORE" (or have our own "CYTHON_USE_CPYTHON_CORE_DETAILS" macro
guard that triggers its #define) and include the internal "pycore_*.h"
CPython
Hi All,
>
>> I seriously start wondering if we shouldn't just define
>> "Py_BUILD_CORE"
>
>
> This sounds just too much, and it's like a war declaration on what they
> are trying to do.
>
I have the same opinion. I think this will negate all effort that the C/API
workgroup is trying to do - to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 00:12, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> given the latest blow against exposing implementation details of CPython
> in
> their C-API (see https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/5767 for the
> endless
> story),
In this new world order of political correctness, they will
Hi all,
given the latest blow against exposing implementation details of CPython in
their C-API (see https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/5767 for the endless
story), I seriously start wondering if we shouldn't just define
"Py_BUILD_CORE" (or have our own "CYTHON_USE_CPYTHON_CORE_DETAILS"
