From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev- bounces+vgr255=live.ca@python.org] On Behalf Of tritium- list@sdamon.com Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 10:35 PM To: 'Sturla Molden'; python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C99
-----Original Message----- From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+tritium- list=sdamon.com@python.org] On Behalf Of Sturla Molden Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2016 10:29 PM To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C99
Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I'm talking about 3rd party extensions. Those may require source compatibility with older Python versions. All I'm asking for is to not require source-level use of C99 features.
This of course removes a lot of its usefulness. E.g. macros cannot be replaced by inline functions, as header files must still be plain C89.
Sturla Molden
I share Guido's priority there - source compatibility is more important than smoothing a few of C's rough edges.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Guido meant that the third-party extensions might require their own code (not CPython's) to be compatible with versions of CPython < 3.6, and so PEP 7 shouldn't force them to break their own backwards compatibility. Either way I'm +1 for allowing (but not enforcing) C99 syntax.
Maybe the next breaking change release this should be considered (python 4000... python 5000?)
Let's not! -Emanuel