michael wrote:
> > Since not using PySequence_Fast() to initialize the protocol,
> > I'd suggest doing a Py_FatalError() with some explanatory
> > text which gets printed to stderr -- still better than a
> > segfault at some later point due to some dangling pointers...
>
> So you'd want PySequence_Fast_GETITEM to look like
>
> #define PySequence_Fast_GETITEM(s,i) \
> (PyList_Check((s)) ? PyList_GET_ITEM((s),(i)) : \
> (PyTuple_Check((s))? PyTuple_GET_ITEM((s),(i)) : \
> Py_FatalError("muffin!") ))
>
> ? That'd probably be fair
sorry, but that's just silly -- the function is called GET_ITEM,
not GetItem.
it's no less safe than PyList_GET_ITEM or PyTuple_GET_ITEM or
any other "trade speed for safety" macro.
</F>
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