RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 24 17:30:45 CEST 1999 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/1999-June/095516.html

> How about introducing internal macros for explicit ob_refcnt accesses
> in the core?

What problem does this solve?

> Actually, there are a number of places where one can see
> "op->ob_refcnt" logic, which could be replaced with _Py_GETREF(op),
> _Py_SETREF(op, n) thus decoupling completely the low level refcount
> management defined in object.h:
> 
> #define _Py_GETREF(op)    (((PyObject *)op)->ob_refcnt)
> #define _Py_SETREF(op, n) (((PyObject *)op)->ob_refcnt = (n))

Why the cast?  It loses some type-safety, e.g. _Py_GETREF(0) will now
cause a core dump instead of a compile-time error.

> Comments?

I don't see how it's cleaner or saves typing:

op->ob_refcnt
_Py_GETREF(op)

op->ob_refcnt = 1
_Py_SETREF(op, 1)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/1999-June/095516.html below:

[Python-Dev] ob_refcnt access