Thomas Heller wrote:
> Since on Windows binary extensions have to be compiled for the exact
> major version of Python, it seems logical (to me, at least), to include
> that version number into the filename. Say, _socket25.pyd.
This would be a major change; it might break the build process of many
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> But if you make the change to implement option 3, IMO it would be a
>> good idea to add the Python version number to the .pyd basename as
>> well.
>
> Can you please elaborate? In the name of what .pyd file do you want
> the Python version number?
Thomas Heller wrote:
> But if you make the change to implement option 3, IMO it would be a
> good idea to add the Python version number to the .pyd basename as
> well.
Can you please elaborate? In the name of what .pyd file do you
want the Python version number? And why? And why is that related
to
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I just tried creating a pysqlite VS project, and ran into a naming
> conflict: the Windows DLL is called sqlite3.dll. So if it is on
> sys.path
>
> import sqlite3
>
> might find the DLL, instead of finding the package. Python then
> finds that there is no entry point in s
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I see three options:
> 1. rename sqlite3 again
> 2. link sqlite3 statically into _sqlite3.pyd
> 3. stop treating .DLL files as extension modules
>
> I'm actually leaning towards option 3: what is the rationale
> for allowing Python extension modules to be named .DLL?
A d
