On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote: > So: you don't need it, it clutters up our code (particularly typeobject.c), > and it adds overhead. The only good reason to keep it is backwards > compatibility, which I admit is a fine reason. Presumably whoever added the context field had a reason for doing so. Does anyone remember what the intended use was? Trawling through the history, all I could find was this comment, attached to revision 23270: [Modified Thu Sep 20 21:45:26 2001 UTC (7 years, 7 months ago) by gvanrossum] """ Add optional docstrings to getset descriptors. Fortunately, there's no backwards compatibility to worry about, so I just pushed the 'closure' struct member to the back -- it's never used in the current code base (I may eliminate it, but that's more work because the getter and setter signatures would have to change.) """ Still, binary compatibility seems like a fairly strong reason not to remove the closure field. Mark
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