On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:20 PM Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Can we please decouple the ctypes deprecation discussion from efforts to upgrade cffi? They can coexist just fine, and they don't even really solve the same problem.

I mostly proposed deprecating ctypes because we were not keeping up with libffi upstream. If we solve the latter I'm not bothered enough to personally pursue the former.


On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:03 PM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 March 2015 at 21:45, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it possible to use cffi without a C compiler/headers as easily than
>> ctypes?
> yes, it has two modes, one that does that and the other that does
> extra safety at the cost of a C compiler

So if someone were to propose a practical approach to including cffi
into the stdlib, *and* assisting the many Windows projects using
ctypes for access to the Windows API [1], then there may be a
reasonable argument for deprecating ctypes. But nobody seems to be
doing that, rather the suggestion appears to be just to deprecate a
widely used part of the stdlib offering no migration path :-(

You're ignoring that it's not maintained, which is the entire reason I brought this up. No one seems to want to touch the code. Who knows what improvements, bugfixes, etc. exist upstream in libffi that we lack because no one wants to go through and figure it out. If someone would come forward and help maintain it then I have no issue with it sticking around.

Python-Dev mailing list

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)