[Python-Dev] PEP 384 final review
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Mon Nov 29 21:22:02 CET 2010
> Extensions built with Py_LIMITED_API have the python version encoded in
> it's name. Which abi name should be used for these extensions?
PEP 3149, IIUC, says it should be "abi3". I don't understand what that
means, though (with respect to, say, distutils)
> - The m and u modifiers in the abi name are complimentary (?)
See above: none of these will be used. Of course, it is possible to name
an ABI-conforming extensions with the regular ABI name of the
> - For posix systems the implementation is currently part of the abi name,
> are Py_LIMITED_API extensions supposed to be compatible with e.g. PyPy?
That's a choice that PyPy needs to make, of course, but Amaury has
indicated that they are interested in doing so.
> Should the LIMITED_API abi name include the implementation string?
> - Should the distutils support for LIMITED_API be part of the pep, or
> be implemented later?
Depends on what support you want. Currently, all you need to do is to
define Py_LIMITED_API to the preprocessor - this is something that is
already supported in distutils.
If you want the support suggested in PEP 3149 (specifying abi=3),
it should certainly be implemented in Python 3.2, despite the distutils
More information about the Python-Dev