[Python-Dev] PEP 384 status

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:04:31 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> > Please consider this: even without relying on PEP 384, using FILE*
> > is /already/ dangerous; because you might compile an extension with a
> > different compiler version than Python was compiled with. So, if we were
> > following you, we should rip out PyObject_Print() of the whole C API,
> > not only the limited subset which is defined by PEP 384.
> >
> > (now I have nothing against completely ripping out PyObject_Print() if
> > we find out that it's not really useful...)
> 
> I think it would be better if everything dealing with FILE* was a
> macro rather than a function, yes. The definition of the limited API
> is a chance to fix that without incurring the cost in backwards
> incompatibility that would otherwise arise. Since we have that
> opportunity, why not take it?

Maybe I've missed your answer, but what would prevent the "inline"
solution from working?
(a macro with the result-as-a-pointer is quite ugly)

Regards

Antoine.