[Stackless] http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/2007-April/000142.html

Kristján Valur Jónsson kristjan at ccpgames.com
Thu Apr 5 23:57:42 CEST 2012

Yes, this is currently causing a problem in-house.
I see what the problem is now, it is that the stackless addition to the object must come at the end of PyTypeObject and also at the end of PyHeapTypeObject.  It is possible to do it by defining the latter in terms of an un-extended version of PyTypeObject, and adding the slp_slots at the end.  I'll see if it is imple to do.

Frá: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [stackless-bounces at stackless.com] fyrir hönd Richard Tew [richard.m.tew at gmail.com]
Sent: 4. apríl 2012 19:53
To: The Stackless Python Mailing List
Efni: Re: [Stackless]   http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/2007-April/000142.html

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson
<kristjan at ccpgames.com> wrote:
> I wonder,
> Why does stackless redefine PyHeapTypeObject?
> Is there any reason to?  Can we fix that so that compatibility with stuff
> such as PyQT is maintained?

Yes, this has been a long time known problem.  We extend the object
structure with Stackless-specific fields, and so does SIP which is
what PyQT uses for its bindings.  However, the number of complaints
about this since Christian and I last discussed it number exactly zero

If PyQT is the only problem, then I am not sure we need to fix it.
Other problems with PyQT which I am not familiar with have
precipitated the development of PySide.  PySide, as I understand it,
can be interchanged with PyQT with minor changes.

It might be sufficient to encourage people to switch to PySide.

Of course, if you can see a way to easily remove the redefinition, we
should probably look at doing that anyway.


Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com

More information about the Stackless mailing list