Larry Hastings wrote: >> If we're adding type information, then please make it a Python object >> rather than a C string. That way the creator and the consumer can use >> a richer API to query the "type", such as by calling its methods or by >> inspecting it in some other way. > > I'm not writing my patch that way; it would be too cumbersome for what > is ostensibly an easy, light-weight API. If you're going that route > you might as well create a real PyTypeObject for the blob you're > passing in. Well, that's exactly the point, given a PyObject* tag, you can add any kind of type identification you need, including some Python type. (It is assumed that the actual pointer you're passing is not a PyObject itself, of course, otherwise you wouldn't need PyCObject at all.) I have no desire to compete with your patch, it was a suggestion for (what I see as) improvement.
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