On 4 February 2014 02:04, Larry Hastings <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/03/2014 07:08 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Feb 03, 2014, at 06:43 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: > > But that only fixes part of the problem. Our theoretical extension that > wants to be binary-compatible with 3.3 and 3.4 still has a problem: how can > they support signatures? They can't give PyMethodDefEx structures to 3.3, > it > will blow up. But if they don't use PyMethodDefEx, they can't have > signatures. > > Can't an extension writer #ifdef around this? Yeah, it's ugly, but it's a > pretty standard approach for making C extensions multi-version compatible. > > > For source compatibility, yes. But I thought the point of the binary ABI > was to allow compiling a single extension that worked unmodified with > multiple versions of Python. If we simply don't support that, then an ifdef > would be fine.
Then the solution appears straightforward to me: Python 3.4 will not support providing introspection information through the stable ABI. If you want to provide signature info for your C extension without an odd first line in your 3.3 docstring, you must produce version specific binaries (which allows #ifdef hackery). Then PEP 457 can address this properly for 3.5 along with the other issues it needs to cover. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com