STINNER Victor <vstin...@redhat.com> added the comment:
> @Victor, do you see any problems with doing this? It will help simplify > other changes I'm working on. I'm quite sure that they are users of the PyInterpreterState structure outside CPython internals and stdlib, but I expect that the number is quite low. Since internal headers are now installed (I modified "make install" for that) (but need to define Py_BUILD_CORE), it might be acceptable to force users of this structure to opt-in for internal headers. Just make sure that we properly communicate on such backward incompatible changes: * "C API Changes" section of https://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/3.8.html#porting-to-python-3-8 * mail to python-dev The bpo-35810 also proposes a subtle backward incompatible change which makes me unhappy, but Stefan Behnel seems less scared than me, so maybe it will be fine. Maybe we need to organize a collective effort to better communicate on our backward incompatible C API changes. The capi-sig mailing list may be a good channel for that. I asked to test some popular C extensions to check that they are not broken. If it's the case, we should help them to be prepared for the new C API. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35886> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
