Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: STINNER Victor wrote: > > STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment: > > I'm reposting my patch from #12751. I think that it's simpler than > belopolsky's patch: it doesn't add public macros in unicodeobject.h and don't > add the complex Py_UNICODE_NEXT() macro. My patch only adds private macros in > unicodeobject.c to factorize the code. > > I don't want to add public macros because with the stable API and with the > PEP 393, we are trying to hide the Py_UNICODE type and PyUnicodeObject > internals. In belopolsky's patch, only Py_UNICODE_NEXT() is used outside > unicodeobject.c.
PEP 393 is an optional feature for extension writers. If they don't need PEP 393 style stable ABIs and want to use the macros, they should be able to. I'm therefore -1 on making them private. Regarding separating adding the various surrogate macros and the next-macros: I don't see a problem with adding both in Python 3.3. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10542> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
