Message345988
> If we reintroduce it, why not put it back at its previous place, to provide ABI compatibility?
I agree. If compatibility matters here, then we should add new elements at the end.
> First of all, we longer care about ABI compatibility of PyTypeObject.
Oh? In that case, let's just remove the reserved/deprecated field :)
> Second, it is extremely unlikely ...
As a rule, "extremely unlikely" isn't unlikely enough for a product with as much reach as Python has. Even if something only happens to 0.1% of users, that's still thousands of people. You have to be prepared to justify hurting those people - potentially to their faces - to back up ideas like this. (And FWIW, yes, I'm happy to explain to people that their pre-generated Cython code broke because Cython had a bug that has since been fixed.) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2019-06-18 15:16:44 | steve.dower | set | recipients:
+ steve.dower, ncoghlan, scoder, vstinner, petr.viktorin, jdemeyer |
2019-06-18 15:16:44 | steve.dower | set | messageid: <1560871004.95.0.147034496885.issue37250@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2019-06-18 15:16:44 | steve.dower | link | issue37250 messages |
2019-06-18 15:16:44 | steve.dower | create | |
|