Author lemburg
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, doerwalter, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, rhettinger, stutzbach, tchrist, vstinner
Date 2011-08-16.21:07:47
SpamBayes Score 6.33479e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4E4ADC1E.80704@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1313527719.96.0.686337799751.issue10542@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
> 
> I'm reposting my patch from #12751. I think that it's simpler than belopolsky's patch: it doesn't add public macros in unicodeobject.h and don't add the complex Py_UNICODE_NEXT() macro. My patch only adds private macros in unicodeobject.c to factorize the code.
> 
> I don't want to add public macros because with the stable API and with the PEP 393, we are trying to hide the Py_UNICODE type and PyUnicodeObject internals. In belopolsky's patch, only Py_UNICODE_NEXT() is used outside unicodeobject.c.

PEP 393 is an optional feature for extension writers. If they don't
need PEP 393 style stable ABIs and want to use the macros, they
should be able to. I'm therefore -1 on making them private.

Regarding separating adding the various surrogate macros and
the next-macros: I don't see a problem with adding both in
Python 3.3.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-08-16 21:07:48lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, georg.brandl, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, vstinner, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti, tchrist
2011-08-16 21:07:47lemburglinkissue10542 messages
2011-08-16 21:07:47lemburgcreate