RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 20 21:05:55 CET 2014 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/131888.html

On 01/20/2014 11:46 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>>
>>> Contestant 5: "Put in __clinic__ directory, add .h"
>>>
>>>    foo.c -> __clinic__/foo.c.h
>>>    foo.h -> __clinic__/foo.h.h
>>
>> This is cached output right?
>
> Yes, it's generated entirely based on data provided
>  in original source file.
>
>> IOW, it can be regenerated if it's missing.  If so,
>>  this seems like a nice parallel to __pycache__.
>>  It's mostly hidden until you want to go looking for it.
>
> More-or-less. The key difference is you will most likely
> look at the generated file *once* to copy-and-paste the
> relevant macros to paste into your source file for use
>  (e.g. the relevant MethodDef stuff). But it's a one-time
> thing that never has to be done again as long as you don't
>  rename a function or method.

Won't AC put those macros in the source file for you?

--
~Ethan~

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/131888.html below:

[Python-Dev] .clinic.c vs .c.clinic