Im not convinced that we need either a) a new implementation, or b) a new API.
I would propose that we use the existing registry access functions from win32api - as I didnt code them, Im not suggesting this due to my own ego. The reasons for my beliefs are:
* The new API does not add any new value. The only changes I can see are that OpenKey() has had a reserved value dropped and QueryValue() has an extra redundant result. Indeed the new API does not appear a new API at all, so should be clearly stated if indeed it is (and in which case, exactly what the changes are) or be documented as a pythonic wrapping of the existing win32 registry API. Further, there is some useful functionality dropped.
* Well tested. There are some obscure rules and code that experience has shown we need. It would be a shame to reinvent those wheels. It has taken a few years to get it "just right", and this was an implementation by people who know their stuff!
Why not take the existing code as it stands (which _does_ include an auto-closing key) and add a new .py wrapper? At least Python will have a "complete, but low-level" registry API, and a higher level "easier to use, but maybe not complete" layer implemented in Python.
Sounds good to me.
Indeed, Guido has stated that the existing win32api functions would be suitable for the core. However, the issue is the "coding style" - and I admit that if I knew exectly what that meant I would make the change - eg, if it only means renaming the identifiers it would be trivial - however, it would also appear to be excessively anal, so Im sure there is more to it than that :-)
I only vaguely recollect what caused me to object against the coding style, but I think it was a lot of little things: // comments, lines longer than 78 chars, unusual indentation style. It was also somehow requiring C++ (everything in the core is plain C). I tried to do a style conversion myself, but found it very painful -- plus there were some dependencies on other files or modules that seemed to require me to pull in a lot of other things besides win32api.c. However, the registry functions are only a tiny piece of win32api -- they could probably be cut out of win32api and moved into something I would tentatively call win32reg (unless that's already an existing name), which could then be cleaned up much easier than all of win32api. I still think that it can be done, but evidently it takes someone besides me and Mark to do it. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)