On 8/15/2011 9:49 AM, Barry Warsaw 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. Coming fresh to the C-API, as I partly am, I would rather have exactly 1 generally useful macro that increments the refcount of an object and returns it. To me, multiple special-case, seldom-used macros are a better example of 'macro obfuscation'. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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