Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: On 28.02.14 15:58, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > Also, for the equivalence to hold there is no separate Py_XSETREF, the X > behaviour is implied, which I favour. Enough of this X-proliferation > already!
On 16.12.15 16:53, Random832 wrote: > I think "SET" names imply that it's safe if the original > reference is NULL. This isn't an objection to the names, but if > it is given one of those names I think it should use Py_XDECREF. It was my initial intension. But then I had got a number of voices for single macros. On 16.12.15 23:16, Victor Stinner wrote: > I would prefer a single macro to avoid bugs, I don't think that such > macro has a critical impact on performances. It's more designed for > safety, no? On 17.12.15 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> 1. Py_SETREF > > +1 if it always uses Py_XDECREF on the previous value (as I'd expect > this to work even if the previous value was NULL) Some objections were repeated by their authors few times. And I had no one voice for separate macros (except my). In the light of your objection we should reraise this issue on Python-Dev. Now, after applying patches, it would be harder to split Py_SETREF on two macros. But I tried to not replace a Py_DECREF with a Py_SETREF in performance critical code (e.g. in PyDict_SetItem). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue26200> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
