Re: [Python-Dev] [Fwd: Re: PEP 384: Defining a Stable ABI]

2009-05-22 Thread William Reade
William Reade wrote: 2) Since it hasn't always been in place, its introduction won't help me in the short term: there are an awful lot of extension modules that use excluded functions (for example, all(?) PyCxx modules use PyCode_New and PyFrame_New to get nicer tracebacks), and I'll still hav

Re: [Python-Dev] [Fwd: Re: PEP 384: Defining a Stable ABI]

2009-05-20 Thread Jeffrey Yasskin
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:09 AM, William Reade wrote: > (for example, all(?) PyCxx modules use PyCode_New and > PyFrame_New to get nicer tracebacks) Specifically for this, I think it'd be nice to expose a function to do this directly. I recently added PyCode_NewEmpty (http://svn.python.org/view?v

Re: [Python-Dev] [Fwd: Re: PEP 384: Defining a Stable ABI]

2009-05-19 Thread William Reade
My perspective is as follows: 1) If PEP-384 had always been in place, my life would now be a lot easier. 2) Since it hasn't always been in place, its introduction won't help me in the short term: there are an awful lot of extension modules that use excluded functions (for example, all(?) PyCxx