On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Gregory Szorc <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/19/2012 12:49 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 02/19/2012 05:39 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: >>> Does anyone else think that "arguments" may not be the best name? >>> Perhaps "argument_types" would be more suitable... >> >> Yes. I agree. Either name it argument_types, or return a class called >> 'argument' that than has a .type() function. Returning a class is >> probably overhead, as it would only have a single function. I would >> just name the iterator argument_types(). >> >> Also, I just realized you define the __iter__(self) method. Why is >> that needed? Diagnostic.ranges() gets away without using it? > > argument_types() it is. It seems __iter__ has a default implementation > somewhere (I guess in object). In the current patch, I changed the class > to derive from collections.Sequence. This is more appropriate than > deriving from object and the default implementation of __iter__ there > works as expected (it calls __getitem__ from 0..n until __getitem__ > throws IndexError).
The one thing that strikes me as odd is that the method is on the "Type", but it looks like that's a design decision that was made earlier (just wandering what this will become in the future if *all* methods of all Type subclasses in the AST become accessible from that one class) Otherwise looks good. Cheers, /Manuel > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
