Message105260
| Author |
zooko |
| Recipients |
gvanrossum, lemburg, loewis, r.david.murray, scoder, stutzbach, vstinner, zooko |
| Date |
2010年05月08日.04:46:21 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.682226e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1273293988.56.0.556465750639.issue8654@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Option 1: Make Unicode-agnosticism the default and force anyone who cares about the Unicode setting to include a separate header. If they don't include that header, they can only call safe functions and can't poke at PyUnicodeObject's internals. If they include the header, their module will always generate a link failure if the Unicode settings are mismatched. (Guido proposed this solution in the python-ideas thread)
+1
The packaging and compatibility problems are pressing concerns for many people. Poking at PyUnicodeObject's internals seems like a rare pretty rare need for an extension module to do. If I understand correctly, this option provides the best solution to the packaging and compatibility issues (over the long term, as Python and the authors of extension modules upgrade). |
|