Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> added the comment: > Also, later, these structures may change to be more efficient.
Tuples? Really? Ok, quoting PEP-620: > Members of … PyTupleObject structures have not changed since the "Initial > revision" commit (1990) I honestly think the reason for that might simply be that there's not so much to improve for tuples. > nothing prevents a C extension to get or set directly > PyTupleObject.ob_item[0] (the first item of a tuple). I certainly understand that that is a problem, especially if "PyObject" may change in the future. And this is essentially what the current "PyTuple_GET_ITEM()" macro does in a binary module. Should we also turn "_PyTuple_ITEMS()" into a public inline function then to make up for the loss of the "&PyTuple_GET_ITEM(t, 0)" pattern? It would make it explicit what is intended. I think that should be our main goal in the CPython side. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue41078> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
