Message152188
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
jcon, kristjan.jonsson, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, paul.moore, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, pv, rupole, skrah, teoliphant, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年01月28日.20:59:26 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.83532e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1327784231.8904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1327759996.33.0.0190288037357.issue10181@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> a) Make all functions and the two buffer access macros part
> of the limited API again.
Hmm, I don't think buffer access macros should be part of the limited
API. If they are truely important (which I doubt), we should have
equivalent functions for them.
> I think it might be OK to defer the decision about Py_MEMORYVIEW_C etc.,
> since the comment already says "... Don't access their fields directly.".
My question is whether there is any point in making these flags. Does
3rd-party code want to manipulate memoryview internals, instead of
querying the Py_buffer?
(and of course the memoryview object is becoming more and more like
another Py_buffer :-)) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年01月28日 20:59:27 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, teoliphant, paul.moore, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, rupole, kristjan.jonsson, vstinner, pv, skrah, jcon, petri.lehtinen |
| 2012年01月28日 20:59:27 | pitrou | link | issue10181 messages |
| 2012年01月28日 20:59:26 | pitrou | create |
|