STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment: > The code review links point to something weird.
That's because I posted a patch for another issue. It's the patch set 5, not the patch set 6 :-) Direct link: http://bugs.python.org/review/10542/patch/3174/9874 > My first impression is that your patch does not accomplish much beyond > replacing some literal expressions with macros. Yes, and it avoids the duplication of some code patterns, as explained in my message. I would like to avoid constants in the code. Some macros are *a little bit* faster than the current code. > What I wanted to achieve with this issue was to enable writing code > without #ifdef Py_UNICODE_WIDE branches. Yes, and I think that it's better to split this issue in two steps: 1- add macros for the surrogates (test, join, ...) 2- Py_UNICODE_NEXT() > In your patch these branches seem to still be there > and in fact it appears that new code is longer than the old one Yes, the code adds more lines than it removes. Is it a problem? My goal is to have more readable code (easier to maintain). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10542> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
