On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:15:44 +0100 Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer@UGent.be> wrote:
On 2019-02-16 00:37, Eric Snow wrote:
One thing that would help simplify changes in this area is if PyInterpreterState were defined in Include/internal.
How would that help anything? I don't like the idea (in general, I'm not talking about PyInterpreterState specifically) that external modules should be second-class citizens compared to modules inside CPython.
If you want to break the undocumented API, just break it. I don't mind. But I don't see why it's required to move the include to Include/internal for that.
This sounds like a reasonable design principle: decree the API non-stable and prone to breakage (it already is, anyway), don't hide it. It's true that in the PyInterpreterState case specifically, there doesn't seem much worthy of use by third-party libraries. Regards Antoine.