On Thu, 5 May 2011 19:17:30 +0200 "Amaury Forgeot d'Arc" <amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/5/5 Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>: > > Seems you're in agreement with this. IMO when references are borrowed > > it is not very interesting. The interesting thing is when calling a > > function *steals* a reference. The other important thing to know is > > whether the caller ends up owning the return value (if it is an > > object) or not. I *think* you can tell the latter from the +1 for the > > return value; but the former (whether it steals a reference) is > > unclear from the data given. There's even an XXX comment about this in > > the file: > > > > # XXX NOTE: the 0/+1/-1 refcount information for arguments is > > # confusing! Much more useful would be to indicate whether the > > # function "steals" a reference to the argument or not. Take for > > # example PyList_SetItem(list, i, item). This lists as a 0 change for > > # both the list and the item arguments. However, in fact it steals a > > # reference to the item argument! > > Should we change this file then? > And only list functions that don't follow the usual conventions. +1 Regards Antoine.
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