Message105309
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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-05-08 16:19:29 | stutzbach | set | recipients:
+ stutzbach, lemburg, gvanrossum, loewis, zooko, scoder, vstinner, r.david.murray |
2010-05-08 16:19:27 | stutzbach | link | issue8654 messages |
2010-05-08 16:19:27 | stutzbach | create | |
|