[Python-Dev] The C API and wide unicode support

[Guido van Rossum]

[me]
> > Maybe because other macros are often disallowed in (3rd party)
> > extensions, the reason being that the macros dig in the internal
> > representation which isn't guaranteed to be binary compatible?  It
> > would make sense that the same rules applies to the Unicode macros in
> > 3rd party extensions.
> 
> Which macros would that be ? I modelled the macros in the
> Unicode implementation after those of the string
> implementation. And those macros are certainly used in
> a lot of 3rd party extensions.

I take it back.  We're anal about binary compatibility in part because
of this.  There are (or were? it's changed so much!) a few macros in
the memory allocator API that were not supposed to be used except in
core code; I think I was thinking of those.

> I guess, having the macros in the header files without an
> explicit warning marks them as public interface. That's how
> I have used them in tons of code and I think that I'm not
> alone in using this approach.

If there was a warning in the docs, that would prove you wrong, but
fortunately for you there isn't. :-)

> I think that the fact that Michael is seeing breakage is
> a good thing. Otherwise, he would probably not have noticed
> that RedHat chose to use the wide build as default.

Exactly.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)