<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/29/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">"Martin v. Löwis"</b> <<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Neal Norwitz wrote:<br>> minus comments, etc yields several questions about whether some<br>> values should use Py_ssize_t rather than C longs. In particular:<br><br>> * ints: Include/intobject.h: long ob_ival;
<br><br>As Tim says, this is way out of scope for 2.5. Guido said it is ok<br>to change this to 64-bit ints in 2.6, but I expect some embedded<br>system developers will start screaming when they hear that: 64-bit<br>arithmetic is expensive on a 32-bit machine.
</blockquote><div><br>Well, those systems shouldn't have a 64-bit Py_ssize_t anyway, should they?<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!