RetroSearch Browse

Sun Nov 19 06:50:07 EST 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-November/150635.html

19.11.17 12:59, Antoine Pitrou пише:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 00:18:28 +0100
> Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 18 nov. 2017 10:44, "Serhiy Storchaka" <storchaka at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> The simplest way to do this:
>>
>> #define PyTuple_GET_ITEM PyTuple_GetItem
>>
>> This will not add new names to ABI. Such defines can be added in a separate
>> header file included for compatibility.
>>
>>
>> It is exactly what I am proposing :-)
> 
> But those do not have the same semantics.  PyTuple_GetItem() checks its
> arguments and raises an error if you pass it something else than a
> tuple, or if the index is out of bounds.  PyTuple_GET_ITEM(), however,
> will crash if you do so.

There are no guaranties that PyTuple_GET_ITEM() will crash.

In all cases when PyTuple_GET_ITEM() is used for getting the reference 
to a tuple's item it can be replaced with PyTuple_GetItem().

But if PyTuple_GET_ITEM() is used for getting a reference to a C array 
of items it can't be replaced with PyTuple_GetItem(). And actually there 
is no replacement for this case in the limited API.

     PyObject **items = &PyTuple_GET_ITEM(tuple, 0);

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-November/150635.html below:

[Python-Dev] Make the stable API-ABI usable