On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:20:18PM +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
> From: "Thomas Wouters" <thomas@xs4all.net>
> > While trying to figure out why passing an unhashable object to switch didn't
> > cause a TypeError: unhashable object, I found out PyDict_GetItem and
> > dict_subscript behave differently in that respect. PyDict_GetItem does:
> >
> > hash = PyObject_Hash(key);
> > if (hash == -1) {
> > PyErr_Clear();
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > whereas dict_subscript does:
> >
> > hash = PyObject_Hash(key);
> > if (hash == -1)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > PyDict_SetItem and PyDict_DelItem both behave like dict_subscript (that is,
> > they propagate the error upwards, instead of clearing the error.) Is this
> > intentional ?
> It seems so, at least it's documented.
Is it ? Where ? The API docs (both devel and current versions) have only
this to say:
PyObject* PyDict_GetItem(PyObject *p, PyObject *key)
Return value: Borrowed reference.
Returns the object from dictionary p which has a key 'key'. Returns NULL if
the key 'key' is not present, but without setting an exception.
> I'd use PyObject_GetItem(), but...
Hm, I guess. Not quite intuitive to me, but it'll do.
--
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4