Author amaury.forgeotdarc
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, bupjae, ezio.melotti, lemburg, vstinner
Date 2009-10-06.08:52:28
SpamBayes Score 2.82806e-11
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
So the discussion is now on 2 points:

1. Is the change backwards compatible? (at the code level, after
recompilation).  My answer is yes, because all known case
transformations stay in the same plane: if you pass a char in the BMP,
they return a char in the BMP; if you pass a code >0x1000, you get
another code >0x1000. In other words: in narrow builds, when you pass
Py_UNICODE, the answer will be correct even when downcasted to
Py_UNICODE.  If you want, I can add checks to to
verify that future Unicode standards don't break this statement.

"Naive" code that simply walks the Py_UNICODE* buffer will have
identical behavior.  (The current unicode methods are in this case. 
They should be fixed, later)

2. Is this change acceptable for 3.2?  I'd say yes, because existing
extension modules that use these functions will need to be recompiled;
the functions names change, the modules won't load otherwise.  There is
no need to change the API number for this.
Date User Action Args
2009-10-06 08:52:31amaury.forgeotdarcsetrecipients: + amaury.forgeotdarc, lemburg, Rhamphoryncus, vstinner, ezio.melotti, bupjae
2009-10-06 08:52:31amaury.forgeotdarcsetmessageid: <>
2009-10-06 08:52:29amaury.forgeotdarclinkissue5127 messages
2009-10-06 08:52:28amaury.forgeotdarccreate