➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author stutzbach
Recipients gvanrossum, lemburg, loewis, r.david.murray, scoder, stutzbach, vstinner, zooko
Date 2010-05-08.16:19:27
SpamBayes Score 0.001969046
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <r2neae285401005080919ic3bd243due2a08ce7d1c6916e@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <4BE58B27.9000808@v.loewis.de>
Content 
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Martin v. Löwis <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Did you mean to include the hunk from msg105295 as part of the patch?
> If so, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of the patch?

My intention is to offer two compilation modes to extension authors:

1) A mode that defines Py_UNICODE, PyUnicodeObject, and various unsafe
functions and macros.
2) A mode that does not define them.

In mode #1, importing the module should fail if the Unicode settings
are mismatched.  I had meant to include the hunk from msg105295 only
in mode #1.

Right now I favor your idea of generating a runtime error when loading
the module, instead of a linker error.  Assuming we go that route, the
hunk from msg105295 will not be used at all.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-05-08 16:19:29stutzbachsetrecipients: + stutzbach, lemburg, gvanrossum, loewis, zooko, scoder, vstinner, r.david.murray
2010-05-08 16:19:27stutzbachlinkissue8654 messages
2010-05-08 16:19:27stutzbachcreate