RetroSearch Browse

Tue Oct 11 15:19:43 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/114023.html

On Oct 11, 2011, at 02:36 PM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:

>On 10/08/2011 04:54 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>       tmp = PyObject_CallMethod(result, "update", "O", other);
>>
>> would be replaced with
>>
>>        PyObject *tmp;
>>        Py_identifier(update);
>>        ...
>>        tmp = PyObject_CallMethodId(result,&PyId_update, "O", other);
>
>An alternative I am fond of is to to avoid introducing a new type, and simply
>initialize a PyObject * and register its address.  For example:
>
>   PyObject *tmp;
>   static PyObject *s_update;    // pick a naming convention
>
>   PY_IDENTIFIER_INIT(update);
>   tmp = PyObject_CallMethodObj(result, s_update, "O", other);
>
>   (but also PyObject_GetAttr(o, s_update), etc.)

I like this better too because of the all-caps macro name.  Something about
seeing "Py_identifier" look like a function call and having it add the magical
PyId_update local bugs me.  It just looks wrong, whereas the all-caps is more
of a cultural clue that something else is going on.

-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/114023.html below:

[Python-Dev] Identifier API