Re: PEP 489: Redesigning extension module loading

On 26 March 2015 at 20:01, Petr Viktorin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/26/2015 05:25 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> So actually writing that down suggests numeric slots may still be a
>> better idea.
>
>
> Yes, I think so as well. Also consider:
> - Python can fail hard on unknown slot numbers. Checking for unknown exports
> would require enumerating exported symbols, which is definitely not
> something I can code for every platform (if that's even possible).
> - Additional exported functions are not actually more type-safe – the
> exported symbols would be void*, Python would still need to cast to an
> appropriate function type.

OK, sold - numeric slots it is (and I agree that changes the naming
scheme back to favouring retaining "PyModuleExport" as the common
prefix).

I think that's all the points of discussion we still had open on the
current draft covered, so I'll wait for the next update before
commenting further :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Import-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/import-sig