<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Guido van Rossum</b> <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</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;">
On 1/3/07, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <<a href="mailto:fdrake@acm.org">fdrake@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 11:06, Martin v. Löwis wrote:<br>> > In #1626545, Anton Tropashko requests that object.h
should be<br>> > renamed, because it causes conflicts with other software.<br>> ><br>> > I would like to comply with this requests for 2.6, assuming there<br>> > shouldn't be many problems with existing software as
object.h<br>> > shouldn't be included directly, anyway.<br>><br>> +1<br><br>Maybe this should be done in a more systematic fashion? E.g. by giving<br>all "internal" header files a "py_" prefix?
</blockquote><div><br>I was thinking the same, and I'm sure Neal Norwitz is/was too (he suggested this a few times in the past, at least outside of python-dev.) There are a few headers that might be in 'legitimate' use right now (as in, there is no way to do what they need to do without including those seemingly internal headers) but personally I think breaking source compatibility and requiring portable code that needs access to those to #if/#ifdef around it, to be a reasonable price to pay. (Only for header files that should really be internal, of course, not ones that are oft-used outside the core.)
<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!