RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 27 09:08:37 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/144362.html

On 27 April 2016 at 17:14, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps:
>
> 1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on
> failure.

I'd suggest a variant on this that more closely matches the
PyList_SetItem and PyTuple_SetItem cases: PyModule_SetAttrString

The first two match the signature of PySequence_SetItem, but steal the
reference instead of making a new one, and the same relationship would
exist between PyObject_SetAttrString and the new
PyModule_SetAttrString.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/144362.html below:

[Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()