Skip to content

Conversation

gpshead
Copy link
Member

@gpshead gpshead commented Mar 7, 2023

Clarify in the abstract that this does not apply to all types, things like tuple and int are excluded. But could be done in the future.

Fix basesize vs basicsize field name typos. oops! 😁

Remove the Open Issues section and mention that using a PyType_Spec flag instead of a negative basicsize was rejected and offer an explanation why. (ultimately either way would work with similar impact)


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3041.org.readthedocs.build/

Clarify in the abstract that this does not apply to all types, things
like tuple and int are excluded.  But could be done in the future.

Fix ``basesize`` vs ``basicsize`` field name typos.

Remove the Open Issues section and mention that using a PyType_Spec flag
instead of a negative basicsize was rejected and offer an explanation
why.  (ultimately either way would work with similar impact)
@gpshead gpshead requested a review from encukou as a code owner March 7, 2023 08:30
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach changed the title Cleanup PEP-697 before PSC acceptance. PEP 697: Clean up before PSC acceptance Mar 7, 2023
@encukou encukou merged commit 9ddc022 into python:main Mar 7, 2023
@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Mar 7, 2023

Thank you!

@gpshead gpshead deleted the cleanup/pep-697 branch March 7, 2023 20:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants