The patch http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=427190&group_id=5470 introduces two new calling conventions, METH_O and METH_NOARGS. The rationale for METH_O has been discussed already; the rationale for METH_NOARGS is that it allows a convient simplification (plus a marginal speed-up) of functions which do either PyArg_NoArgs(args) or PyArg_ParseTuple(args, ":function_name"). Now, one open issue is whether the METH_NOARGS functions should have a signature of PyObject * (*unaryfunc)(PyObject *); or of PyObject *(*PyCFunction)(PyObject *, PyObject *); which then would be called with a NULL second argument; the first argument would be self in either case. IMO, the advantage of passing the NULL argument is that NOARGS methods don't need to be cast into PyCFunction in the method table; the advantage of the second approach is that it is clearer in the function implementation. Any opinions which signature to use? Regards, Martin
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