Agreed, let's go with two macros. The time discussing this further
could be spent more productively.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> If some dev don't want to use the single macro for good or bad reasons, it's
> maybe better to have two macros to generalize their usage. Th
If some dev don't want to use the single macro for good or bad reasons,
it's maybe better to have two macros to generalize their usage. The macro
makes to C code shorter and easier to review.
Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https
On 3 April 2016 at 17:32, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> Originally I proposed a pair of macros for safe reference replacing to
> reflects the duality of Py_DECREF/Py_XDECREF. [1], [2] The one should use
> Py_DECREF and the other should use Py_XDECREF.
>
> But then I got a number of voices for the sin
Hi,
On 3 April 2016 at 15:29, MRAB wrote:
>> Should we rename Py_SETREF to Py_XSETREF and introduce new Py_SETREF
>> that uses Py_DECREF?
>
> Checking for NULL is convenient (and safer), but, on the other hand, it
> _would_ be consistent with the others.
My 2 cents would be to call the new macro
On 2016-04-03 08:32, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
Originally I proposed a pair of macros for safe reference replacing to
reflects the duality of Py_DECREF/Py_XDECREF. [1], [2] The one should
use Py_DECREF and the other should use Py_XDECREF.
But then I got a number of voices for the single name [3],
Originally I proposed a pair of macros for safe reference replacing to
reflects the duality of Py_DECREF/Py_XDECREF. [1], [2] The one should
use Py_DECREF and the other should use Py_XDECREF.
But then I got a number of voices for the single name [3], and no one
voice (except mine) for the pai
