# PEP 793 – PyModExport: A new entry point for C extension modules

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-793-pymodexport-a-new-entry-point-for-c-extension-modules/93444>\
**Category:** PEPs\
**Created:** [May 27, 2025, 4:55am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-793-pymodexport-a-new-entry-point-for-c-extension-modules/93444 "2025-05-27T04:55:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 16

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![encukou](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/encukou/32/2461_2.png) [@encukou](https://discuss.python.org/u/encukou)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2025, 6:45am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-793-pymodexport-a-new-entry-point-for-c-extension-modules/93444/16 "2025-06-12T06:45:53Z")

</div>

> [@pitrou](#):
>
> Would it work to use `intptr_t` or `uintptr_t` instead?

This PEP explicitly sticks with the existing `PyModuleDef_Slot`.

Using `intptr_t` would mean either changing `PyModuleDef_Slot`, or making `PyModExport_*` use a new slot type.  
I’d like to do the latter, and solve a few more issues with slots too, but it’s a more controversial proposal. See [this topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-unified-slot-system-for-the-c-api/78873).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-793-pymodexport-a-new-entry-point-for-c-extension-modules/93444)._