[Python-Dev] 2.6 and 3.0 tasks

Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de
Sat Mar 22 00:41:21 CET 2008

Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> Even though the more popular PyInt_ APIs are still available (even if
> only as macros).

THe PyInt_* macros are only available when Include/intobject.h is
included explicitly. It's not in Python.h any more.

> I disagree. Bad merges are already a frequent cause of instability in
> 3.0. This could easily double the problems. And while I want to reduce
> the instability (I really wish you would no commit until all unittests
> pass), I also don't want the merges to cost more of your time!

I'm trying my best but sometimes I don't spot the cause of a failing
unit test. I got a slightly faster laptop so I'm now able to run the
full unit test suite every time I do a svnmerge.py.

> It doesn't have to be so black and white. Using the macro approach you
> propose we can fix the situation at any time later.
> We could also make the changes in 2.6, so that the 2.6 code looks the
> same as 3.0. (However for binary compatibility I think it would be
> better if in 2.6 the linker sees PyString where in 3.0 it sees
> PyBytes.)

Let me get this straight. You propose that we replace PyString_ with
PyBytes_ in both Python 2.6 and 3.0 core code. In Python 2.6 some macros
replace the PyBytes_* functions with PyString_ so the linker sees
PyString_*? Mmh, it sounds like an interesting idea :]


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list