> To call these, the calling mechanism would have to cast these > to: > > foo(void *, void *, void *) > bar(void *, void *, void *, void *, void *) > > Wouldn't this work ? I think it would work, but I doubt it would save much compared to the existing approach. The main point of this patch is to improve efficiency, and (according to Jeremy's analysis), most of the time for calling a function is spend in PyArg_ParseTuple. So if we replace it with another interface that also relies on parsing a string, I doubt we'll improve efficiency. IOW, I won't implement that approach. If you do, I'd be curious to hear the results, of course. Regards, Martin P.S. There would be still cases where PyArg_ParseTuple is needed, e.g. for "O!".
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