[Python-Dev] Python API version & optional features
Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:59:38 +0200
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > > I am not sure whether this is the right way to approach this
> > > > problem, though, since it affects all extensions -- not only
> > > > ones using Unicode.
> > >
> > > Given that unicodeobject.h defines many macros and size-sensitive
> > > types in the public API, I don't see any way around this. If the API
> > > always used UCS4 (including in the macros), or defined both UCS2 and
> > > UCS4 versions of everything affected, then we could get around it.
> > > That seems like a high price to pay.
> > I think Guido suggested using macros to turn the Unicode APIs
> > into e.g. PyUnicodeUCS4_Encode() vs. PyUnicodeUCS2_Encode().
> > That would prevent loading of non-compatible extensions using Unicode
> > APIs (it doesn't catch the argument parser usage, though, e.g.
> > "u").
> > Perhaps that's the way to go ?!
> Hm, the "u" argument parser is a nasty one to catch. How likely is
> this to be the *only* reference to Unicode in a particular extension?
It is not very likely but IMHO possible for e.g. extensions
which rely on the fact that wchar_t == Py_UNICODE and then do
direct interfacing to some other third party code.
I guess one could argue that extension writers should check
for narrow/wide builds in their extensions before using Unicode.
Since the number of Unicode extension writers is much smaller
than the number of users, I think that this apporach would be
reasonable, provided that we document the problem clearly in the
> I'm trying to convince myself that the magic number patch is okay, and
> here's what I come up with. If someone builds a Python with a
> non-standard Unicode width and accidentally uses a directory full of
> extensions built for the standard Unicode width on his platform, he
> deserves a warning. Since most extensions come with source anyway,
> people who want to experiment with UCS4 will have to be more
> adventurous and build all the extensions they need from source. The
> warnings will remind them. If there's a particular extension that
> they can only get in binary *and* that extension doesn't use Unicode,
> they can train themselves to ignore that warning.
Hmm, that would probably not make UCS-4 builds very popular ;-)
> These warnings should use the warnings framework, by the way, to make
> it easier to ignore a specific warning. Currently it's a hard write
> to stderr.
Using the warnings framework would indeed be a good idea (many older
extensions work just fine even with later API levels; the warnings
are annoying, though) !
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/