RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 29 21:00:59 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-August/145945.html

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 17:06 Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

> On 8/29/2016 5:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > who objected to the new field did either for memory ("it adds another
> > pointer to the struct that won't be typically used"), or for conceptual
> > reasons ("the code object is immutable and you're proposing a mutable
> > field"). The latter is addressed by not exposing the field in Python and
>
> Am I correct is thinking that you will also not add the new field as an
> argument to PyCode_New?
>

Correct.

>  > clearly stating that code should never expect the field to be filled.
>
> I interpret this as "The only code that should access the field should
> be code that put something there."
>

Yep, seems like a reasonable rule to follow.

-brett

> --
> Terry Jan Reedy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160830/8c6838a0/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-August/145945.html below:

[Python-Dev] Update on PEP 523 and adding a co_extra field to code objects