Message343706
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | barry, christian.heimes, emilyemorehouse, eric.snow, ncoghlan, vstinner |
| Date | 2019-05-27.23:40:30 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1559000430.97.0.184016204909.issue33919@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
So far, there is no clear agreement to expose C PyConfig structure in Python, so I close the issue. My PEP 587 has been accepted. I chose to not expose PyConfig in Python in the PEP. But I'm open to revisit this idea later, especially to move towards PEP 432: implement multi-phase initialization (only partially supported in my PEP 587). But I would prefer to a different rationale than exposing hash_seed. For hash_seed alone, I don't think that it's worth it. Moreover, Christian wrote: > hash_seed and use_hash_seed could be added to sys.hash_info. This would be the first place I'd look for the information. After all I implemented it. :) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2019-05-27 23:40:30 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, barry, ncoghlan, christian.heimes, eric.snow, emilyemorehouse |
| 2019-05-27 23:40:30 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1559000430.97.0.184016204909.issue33919@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2019-05-27 23:40:30 | vstinner | link | issue33919 messages |
| 2019-05-27 23:40:30 | vstinner | create | |