This is my last post on this, at least as far as specific usage
instances are concerned. See my question about PEP 7 below. If that is
a discussion people think worthwhile, please start a new thread.
> if (!VISIT(...)) {
> return 0;
> }
> if (!VISIT(...)) {
> return 0;
> }
> if (!VISIT(...)) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> instead of just
>
> VISIT(...);
> VISIT(...);
> VISIT(...);
That seems easily solved with the VISIT-as-macro calling
_VISIT-as-inline function. That pattern exists elsewhere in the code,
in the INCREF/DECREF stuff, for example. The advantage with inline
functions (where you can use them) is that the debugger can work with
them. They are also more readable in my mind (no protective parens
required around expressions/arguments, no do { ... } while (0) }
business, no intrusive backslashification of every line) and they
probably play nicer with editors (think Emacs speedbar or tags file -
not sure if etags groks macros).
In any case, I was just somewhat surprised to see relatively new code
using macros where it seemed inline functions would have worked as
well or better. My more general question stands. Should PEP 7 say
something about the two? (Someone mentioned constants. Should they be
preferred over macros?)
Skip
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IKT2BXHOIGPUE7Y7JNYW5M7QGYMPYZQB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
