RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 4 20:37:54 CEST 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/135665.html

Le 04/08/2014 14:18, Larry Hastings a écrit :
>
> 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",

Is -909 too large a value to be fun?

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/135665.html below:

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