Author pitrou
Recipients jcon, kristjan.jonsson, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, paul.moore, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, pv, rupole, skrah, teoliphant, vstinner
Date 2012-01-28.20:59:26
SpamBayes Score 2.83532e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1327784231.8904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
>    a) Make all functions and the two buffer access macros part
>       of the limited API again.

Hmm, I don't think buffer access macros should be part of the limited
API. If they are truely important (which I doubt), we should have
equivalent functions for them.

> I think it might be OK to defer the decision about Py_MEMORYVIEW_C etc.,
> since the comment already says "... Don't access their fields directly.".

My question is whether there is any point in making these flags. Does
3rd-party code want to manipulate memoryview internals, instead of
querying the Py_buffer?

(and of course the memoryview object is becoming more and more like
another Py_buffer :-))
Date User Action Args
2012-01-28 20:59:27pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, teoliphant, paul.moore, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, rupole, kristjan.jonsson, vstinner, pv, skrah, jcon, petri.lehtinen
2012-01-28 20:59:27pitroulinkissue10181 messages
2012-01-28 20:59:26pitroucreate