On donderdag, nov 28, 2002, at 11:44 Europe/Amsterdam, Martin v. L=F6wis=20= wrote: > Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> writes: > >> I've been sick and tired of these warnings, especially since in 99.9% >> of the cases that you get the warning it is meaningless (as we are >> really taking about bitpatterns that have a special meaning in some C >> API). I personally haven't seen a single instance of the warning >> making sense. > > I found that all those warnings are correct: in particular *when* the > constant is a bit pattern in some C API. > > It means that your code *will* break in Python 2.4, unless you take > corrective action (which you cannot take at the moment). Well.... First of all, warning people about something without giving=20 them a way to do something about it isn't really good style. Second, it=20= will *not* break in 2.4, because I'm just going to add an O& formatter=20= PyMac_Parse32BitIntWithoutSillyComplaints, which will take any=20 reasonable type on the Python side and just return the lower 32 bits. Actually, I could make that fix *now*, but I would still be stuck with=20= the stupid warnings:-( -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> =20 http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma=20 Goldman -
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