On 4/13/06, M.-A. Lemburg email@example.com wrote:
Does this mean you would like to see this patch checked in to 2.5?
Ok, I checked this in to 2.5 (minus the syntax error).
I also think that changing the type from signed to unsigned by backporting the configure fix will only make things safer for the user, since extensions will probably not even be aware of the fact that Py_UNICODE could be signed (it has always been documented to be unsigned).
So +1 on backporting the configure test fix to 2.4.
I'll leave this decision to Martin or someone else, since I'm not familiar with the ramifications. Since it was documented as unsigned, I think it's reasonable to consider changing. Though it could create signed-ness warnings in other modules. I'm not sure but it's possible it could create problems for C++ compilers since they are pickier.