RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jul 26 07:12:42 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067699.html

On 7/25/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I definitely think dropping the X would make the warning go away.
> > Do we want to check for a NULL pointer and raise an exception?  The
> > docs don't address the issue, so I think if we added a check, ie:  if
> > (closure && PyTuple_Check(closure)) and got rid of the X that would be
> > fine as well.
>
> The docs do address the issue:
>
> \var{closure} must be \var{Py_None} or a tuple of cell objects.
>
> It doesn't allow for NULL, and None indicates that the closure
> should become NULL. The only caller of it in the core will never
> pass NULL.
>
> If you want to check that this is not NULL on the grounds that
> somebody may call it incorrectly, then you should also check that
> op is not NULL, because somebody may call it incorrectly.

We never really did address this issue did?  A while back we talked
about whether to assert vs check and do PyErr_BadInternalCall().  I
don't remember a clear resolution (though my memory).  I vaguely
remember a preference towards asserting, but I don't know if that was
in all cases or maybe it was just my preference. :-)

I'm happy to assert here too.  But it's really a broader question.  I
guess I'm even happy to just remove the X.  It would be nice to handle
this consistently going forward.

n

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067699.html below:

[Python-Dev] remaining issues from Klocwork static analysis