MSVC 6.0 Unsupported?

[Bryan]

"Syver Enstad" <syver-en+usenet at online.no> wrote in message news:u4r0u7dvr.fsf at online.no...
> Gerhard Häring <gh at ghaering.de> writes:
>
> > Syver Enstad wrote:
> > > "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal at lemburg.com> writes:
> > >
> > >>The best thing to do is to replace this code in Python's object.h
> > >>file (Python23\Include\object.h; note the comment !):
> > > That's exactly what I did and it worked fine.
> >
> > Requiring users of my software to patch their Python instalation is
> > not an option for me.
>
> But Gerhard, what can I do? Every python extension that I will try to
> compile will fail if it depends on a working staticforward. The most
> rational thing to me is to patch object.h instead of patching every
> .cpp/.c file that needs this define.
>
> -- 
>
> Vennlig hilsen
>
> Syver Enstad


syver,

i agree, patching object.h is the only rational thing to do... everyone in my company will do the same.  i'm using pyrex and
everytime i regenerate the c file, i need to repatch the intermediate c file.  i got tired of this so i just patched object.h and
now i this issue is gone.  i'm not sure if there is a better (more convenient) way.  it was this way before 2.3 and everything
worked just fine, so there shouldn't be any harm doing this in 2.3.   i feel it was taken out for political reasons when it should
have been left in for technical reasons.  after all, the windows verson of python at www.python.org is compiled in msvc.   so
obviously the python community accepts msvc as an exceptable compiler on windows.   care should have been taken to be more
accomodating.

bryan