Last time I looked at it, the C API wasn't nailed down yet. That's why I passed over it entirely for my tutorial. The only advice I was able to give was that if your extension is just a wrapper around existing C code, you might be better off rewriting it using ctypes. That way it should work on both 2.6 and 3.0. This doesn't work for PyCXX, of course :-(
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Barry Scott firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Jul 21, 2008, at 22:37, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 20:16, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
But waiting until all the betas have gone out totally defeats the purpose of the betas!
I agree. Writing an actual *guide* can wait, but documenting the differences with code examples is a work that can start now, and I agree that it would be great if this would start now.
But writing a guide might not be a good idea until we know what the changes are, and if the API is changing quickly now we don't. :-)
I'm working on getting a version of PyCXX working with Python 3.0. The lack of any docs outside of the header files is making this a slow process.
I think its a mistake to expect a serious beta test of extensions when you have no guide to the changes in the C API.
If you had a guide then diff it between releases would be a guide to what need fixing up going from beta to beta to rc.
Oh and I'm not going to try and make a version of PyCXX that works on 2.x and 3.x as the changes are too fundamental.
Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/anthony%40interlink.com.au