RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 15 15:59:00 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-August/112885.html

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:49:43 -0400
Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2011, at 05:46 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> 
> >I don't think that is worth it.  There is some value to keeping the API
> >consistent with the style that has been used in the past.  So, I vote for
> >Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED.  There's no real need to factor this any further.
> >It's not hard and not important enough to introduce a new variation on return
> >macros.  Adding another return style makes the C API harder to learn and
> >remember.  If we we're starting from scratch, Py_RETURN(obj) would make
> >sense.  But we're not starting from scratch, so we should stick with the
> >precedents.
> 
> I can see the small value in the convenience, but I tend to agree with Raymond
> here.  I think we have to be careful about not descending into macro
> obfuscation world.

How is Py_RETURN(Py_NotImplemented) more obfuscated than
Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED ???

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-August/112885.html below:

Add Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED macro. Fixes #12724.