On 3/1/06, martin at v.loewis.de <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > There are a few advantages, though, mainly: > - increased type-safety, in particular for API that isn't type-checked > at all at the moment (e.g. PyArg_ParseTuple) How would this be accomplished - by a function with a ton of optional templated arguments? By some sort of TupleParser(tuple) >> var1 >> var2 >> TupleParser::done? > - more reliable reference counting, due to destructors of local > variables Only true when the rules are consistent with what smart pointers or the like do. When there's more than a single rule, this goes out the window because you have to use the correct smart class... > - "native" exception handling, making exceptions both less error-prone > and possible more efficient. ...and exceptions make it impossible to not use smart classes. Since there isn't a nested level of C for each function call in Python, I don't see how exceptions in the implementation language would help exceptions in Python. Do I misunderstand your point, or is there some really cool trick I'm missing? (To explain my bias, I'm against the idea of the C++ rewrite as I also fail to see the advantages outweighing the disadvantages, especially in light of the amount of rewriting necessary to see the "advantages" cited so far.) Michael -- Michael Urman http://www.tortall.net/mu/blog
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