On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 14.04.2012 10:41: >> Greg Ewing wrote: >>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> >>>> 1) It doesn't work well with multiple interpreter states. Ok, nothing >>>> works with that at the moment, but it is on the roadmap for Python >>> >>> Is it really? I got the impression that it's not considered feasible, >>> since it would require massive changes to the entire implementation >>> and totally break the existing C API. Has someone thought of a way >>> around those problems? >> >> I was just referring to the offhand comments in PEP3121, but I guess that >> PEP had multiple reasons, and perhaps this particular arguøent had no >> significance... > > IIRC, the last status was that even after this PEP, Py3 still has serious > issues with keeping extension modules in separate interpreters. And this > probably isn't worth doing anything about because it won't work without a > major effort in all sorts of places. And I never heard that any extension > module even tried to support this. > > I don't think we should invest too much thought into this direction.
I had never even heard of this PEP before this thread, but this certainly seems reasonable to me. Aside from this, there is some value with the inlined signature in that a pure C library can easily support the ABI as well. Has anyone done any experiments/timings to see if having constants vs. globals even matters? - Robert _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
