> Martin, I was not clear enough. Please, just tell me: Do you believe
> that this addition do make sense? Would you reject it for some reason
> (other than a bad patch) ?
I would be +0. All other integral types support both signed and signed
fields, why not size_t.
Regards,
Martin
__
Martin, I was not clear enough. Please, just tell me: Do you believe
that this addition do make sense? Would you reject it for some reason
(other than a bad patch) ?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Mark, the patch is not trivial, I cannot spend time on this until thi
> Mark, the patch is not trivial, I cannot spend time on this until this
> is accepted. Hope you understand.
I certainly do understand. So it's likely not going to happen.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.pyt
Done, http://bugs.python.org/issue5248
Mark, the patch is not trivial, I cannot spend time on this until this
is accepted. Hope you understand.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>> I would like to propose the inclusi
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> I would like to propose the inclusion of a new T_SIZET in structmember.h
> in order to suport 'size_t' struct fields with PyMemberDef. Would such
> addition be accepted for 2.7 and 3.1?
Please open a feature request at bugs.python.org, and
