itertools.tee uses ints rather than Py_ssize_t for indices. Using Py_ssize_t would not make the object bigger, since other fields will already be pointer-aligned.

Simple patch attached.

I don't think we need Py_ssize_t for integers from 0 to 57.

> I don't think we need Py_ssize_t for integers from 0 to 57.

IMO it's better to use Py_ssize_t there, since it can get combined with
other Py_ssize_t values. Avoiding spurious conversions eliminates a
common source of errors. We don't gain anything by keeping it as an int.

We gain stability.

I doubt we should change this. However in any case you forgot about tee_reduce().

> I doubt we should change this.

Currently itertools.tee() will break if more than 2**31 elements are
saved in the inner structures. I certainly think it should be fixed,
rather than bite someone by surprise one day.

> However in any case you forgot about tee_reduce().

Will take a look.

Ah, my bad, it seems I misunderstood the tee() implementation. So apparenly even index cannot get past 57. It's more of a consistency patch then, and I agree it isn't very important.

There are disadvantages in the changing int to Py_ssize_t. Converting Py_ssize_t  to/from Python int is a little harder than converting C int or long. This change (as any other change) has a risk of introduce new bugs (as you can see on example of your patch).

I suggest just add (yet one) explicit comment.

    int index; /* 0 <= index <= LINKCELLS */

> I suggest just add (yet one) explicit comment.
> 
>     int index; /* 0 <= index <= LINKCELLS */

Ok, I think a comment is good enough here.

New changeset 900bf633b7f4 by Antoine Pitrou in branch 'default':
Add a comment making it explicit that itertools.tee() is already 64bit-safe (issue #19049)
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/900bf633b7f4