Ezio Melotti wrote:
> 
> Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com> added the comment:
> 
>> Ezio used two different naming schemes in his email. Please always
>> use Py_UNICODE_... or _Py_UNICODE (not PyUNICODE_ or _PyUNICODE_).
> 
> Indeed, that was a typo + copy/paste.  I meant to say Py_UNICODE_* and _Py_UNICODE_*.  Sorry about the confusion.

Good :-)

>> Why would you want to touch Python 2.7 at all ?
>> [...]
>> Certainly not into Python 2.7. Adding macros in patch level releases
>> is also not such a good idea.
> 
> Because it has the bug and we can fix it (the macros will be private so that we don't add any feature).
> Also what about 3.2?  Are you saying that we should fix the bug in 3.2/3.3 only and leave 2.x alone or that you don't want the bug to be fixed in all the bug-fix releases (i.e. 2.7/3.2)?
> My idea is to fix the bug in 2.7/3.2/3.3 using the macros, but only make them public in 3.3 so that new features are exposed only in 3.3.

For bug fixes, you can put the macros straight into unicodeobject.c,
but please leave unicodeobject.h untouched - otherwise people will
mess around with these macros (even if they are private) and users
will start to wonder about linker errors if they use old patch
level releases of Python 2.7/3.2.

Also note that some of these macros change the behavior of Python
- that's good if it fixes a bug (obviously :-)), but bad if it changes
areas that are correctly implemented and then suddenly expose
new behavior.