On 9/29/2019 5:13 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
It seems simpler to me to pass the structure size rather than the
Python version. It avoids the risk of updating the structure without
update the Python version. I also avoids to have to change the Python
version immediately when PyConfig is modified.
Le lun. 30 sept. 2019 à 00:33, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> As noted above, despite what I wrote on BPO, you no longer need to persuade
> me that the version check is desirable, only that a narrow check on specific
> struct sizes is preferable to a broad check on the expected API version.
I
On Mon., 30 Sep. 2019, 7:13 am Victor Stinner, wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Le dim. 29 sept. 2019 à 08:47, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> > I don't quite understand the purpose of this change, as there's no
> > stable ABI for applications embedding CPython.
>
> Well, I would like to prepare Python to
Hi Nick,
Le dim. 29 sept. 2019 à 08:47, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> I don't quite understand the purpose of this change, as there's no
> stable ABI for applications embedding CPython.
Well, I would like to prepare Python to provide a stable ABI for
embedded Python. While it's not a design goal yet
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 12:56, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I dislike having to do that, but I had to make a last minute change in
> my PEP 587 "Python Initialization Configuration" to allow to modify
> the structure in the future without breaking the backward
> compatibility. I added a
