homepage

Ref. discussions on bpo-43009 and bpo-41798.

Can you explain what problem this would be solving?

In my opinion, an array of pointers is a bad API; using a struct (like most of the other API's) is an improvement.
Ref. discussions on GH-24186 (https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/24186#discussion_r560834060) and bpo-43009.

> In my opinion, an array of pointers is a bad API;
The existing code is how types were made for most of Python's history. It is not "bad"; it is just more wordy. Given that the current code is correct, I don't see any strong reason to churn the code.

> It is not "bad"; it is just more wordy.
Agree. Using sturct will be more easy check the members.
But converting the decimal c api may breaks the compatibility, because some macros like `PyDec_TypeCheck_INDEX` have been exposed in headers.

> But converting the decimal c api may breaks the compatibility, because some macros like `PyDec_TypeCheck_INDEX` have been exposed in headers.
True. Is there many external users of this API? I could not find any relevant examples using searchcode.com.

I have no opinion about *adding* a struct, but we shouldn't remove the existing array of pointers, or this will needlessly break compatibility for existing users of the C API.

> True. Is there many external users of this API? I could not find any relevant examples using searchcode.com.
Hm, many teams don't open their code, so we get check all user cases by searchcode web. So I have no any better sugesstion about it :(

Just a note that #43422 would make this moot.

Closing, as the C API was removed in GH-24960.