[Python-Dev] [unladen-swallow] PEP 384: Defining a Stable ABI

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Benjamin Peterson writes:
 > 2009/5/20  <skip at pobox.com>:
 > 
 > > I suspect it's not really germane to this discussion but if the
 > > incref/decref functions were defined as inline would that effectively be
 > > like using the macro versions vis a vis ABI compatibility?
 > 
 > The code would be inlined into applications defeating the point of
 > being able to change the implementation. :)

Hang on, are you sure Skip isn't on to something?  If the A*P*Is are
defined in such way that by making them *function calls* they preserve
A*B*I compatibility, while making them inline gives performance, then
the user (in this case, I really mean the vendor of an application
that contains C modules, I guess) can choose which route to go, right?

I suppose that Python itself could be built with inlined code
internally, but also provide the ABI (at a cost in size, of course).

I don't know if this complexity is manageable or worth trying to
manage, but isn't it conceivable that it could work?

I guess that's for the advocates of extending the promise of ABI
compatibility to these APIs to show, though.  I don't need it myself.