On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > What's ERROR_OK needed for? It looks like it's not currently used; it > actually looks like it's impossible to ever raise an exception with > it...
That's true. I added it for parity with the C API. It can safely be removed. > + def __init__(self, ptr=None, filename=None, index=None): > + """Create a TranslationUnit instance. > + > + Instances can be created in the following ways: > + > + * By passing a pointer to a c_object_p instance via ptr. This is > + an internal mechanism and should not be used outside of this > + module. > > This interface seems strange - why have the mixture of 2 constructors in one? Why not? Unfortunately, I can't find any reputable style guidelines to defend either perspective. The closest I have is http://stackoverflow.com/questions/682504/what-is-a-clean-pythonic-way-to-have-multiple-constructors-in-python. And, that seems to indicate a mix of an "overloaded" __init__ with @classmethod is preferred. But, that's just one SO question. Is this particular case, a TranslationUnit is ultimately instantiated from a c_object_p "ptr." If we limited __init__ to a single instantiation mode, we'd have to pass a c_object_p and since these are internal to the module, __init__ wouldn't be an external API. In other words, we'd be throwing __init__ away. Since Python programmers look to __init__ first, I think this would be inconvenient. From an external perspective, TranslationUnit still only has 1 instantiation mode. If it had more, I'd definitely favor adding @classmethods to cover each. I'm not against it today: I just see no reason for it. Anyway, as I typed this, I realized that we need an additional constructor mode: from source file (e.g. Index.parse). Let me code up a new patch and we'll see what you think. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
