RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 4 20:18:44 CEST 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/135664.html

On 08/05/2014 03:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le 04/08/2014 13:36, Alexander Belopolsky a écrit :
>> If the receiving type is PyObject*, either NULL or Py_None is a valid 
>> choice.
> But here the receiving type can be an int.

Just to be precise: in the case where the receiving type *would* have 
been an int, and "nullable=True", the receiving type is actually a 
structure containing an int and a "you got a None" flag. I can't stick a 
magic value in the int and say "that represents you getting a None" 
because any integer value may be valid.

Also, I'm pretty sure there are places in builtin argument parsing that 
accept either NULL or Py_None, and I *think* maybe in one or two of them 
they actually mean different things.  What fun!

For small values of "fun",

//arry/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140805/396bdbee/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/135664.html below:

[Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?