[Python-Dev] Python API version & optional features
Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:14:53 +0200
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > 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
> > NEWS file.
> OK. I approve.
Great ! I'll go ahead and fix unicodeobject.h.
> > Hmm, that would probably not make UCS-4 builds very popular ;-)
> Do you have any reason to assume that it would be popular otherwise?
> :-) :-) :-)
Oh, I do hope that people try out the UCS-4 builds. They may not
be all that interesting yet, but I believe that for Asian users
they do have some advantages.
> > > 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) !
> I'm not going to make the change, but it should be a two-liner in
I'll look into this as well.
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/