12.10.13 22:56, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:16 +0200
Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 12.10.2013 20:20, schrieb Serhiy Storchaka:
12.10.13 21:04, Georg Brandl написав(ла):
in light of the recent thread about PEPs not forming part of the docs,
I've just pushed a change that allows to document C API elements
not part of the limited API as such. It is done like this:
... c:function:: int _PyTuple_Resize(PyObject **p, Py_ssize_t newsize)
:notlimited:
I have not yet begun adding these to the documents; if someone wants to
help with this I am glad for volunteers.
Why this is needed? The limited API is unstable and only developers of
CPython can use it (but they can look in headers).
Well, I may be reading PEP 384 wrongly, but the point is exactly to have a
*stable* API for *non-core* developers to rely upon, so that they can build
extensions that don't need to be recompiled for every version of Python.
This is true.
However, I find the proposed markup not very enlightening :-)
I would prefer if "limited" APIs where marked with a :stableabi: tag.
("limited API" is really a bad synonym for "stable ABI" IMO)
Why not limited private API should be documented at all besides sources?
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
