>> Py_UINT4, Py_UINT2, etc... [Fred Drake] > Yes, we'd have to have our own names (unfortunate, but only matters > for API functions, not locals). How bad that is depends on what you > call "sane". And I'm not going to predict Tim on this! ;) I'm in favor of (as Trent Mick once suggested) getting exactly as insane as C9X: they thought hard about this, and came up with a whole slew of new symbolic names for the roles integral types play. We make typedefs of the same names (well, for as many as we actually *need*) but with Py_ in front of them. In time, as C9X takes over the world, the platform-#ifdef infested section of pyport.h declaring them actually *shrinks*, as more & more platforms support typedef'ing to the std C9X-defined names.
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