> > Sorry, but this is nuts, and Martin is right that I don't want Python to > > offer a "malloc wrapper" that doesn't meet the standard rules for malloc. > > Instead I intend to change the docs to say that Py_Malloc(0) acts like > > platform malloc(1), and leave it at that. > > That, OTOH, is not what Guido wants it to be. Guido wants Py_Malloc to > return 0 *only* in case of failure; allocating 0 bytes should > "normally" succeed. I still cannot see what problems you have with > this requirement. How is this different from what Tim says? Maybe you read what Tim wrote as malloc(0)? But he wrote malloc(1). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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