On 01/20/2014 12:14 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 20.01.2014 21:05, schrieb Ethan Furman:
On 01/20/2014 11:46 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Contestant 5: "Put in __clinic__ directory, add .h"
foo.c -> __clinic__/foo.c.h
foo.h -> __clinic__/foo.h.h
This is cached output right?
Yes, it's generated entirely based on data provided
in original source file.
IOW, it can be regenerated if it's missing. If so,
this seems like a nice parallel to __pycache__.
It's mostly hidden until you want to go looking for it.
More-or-less. The key difference is you will most likely
look at the generated file *once* to copy-and-paste the
relevant macros to paste into your source file for use
(e.g. the relevant MethodDef stuff). But it's a one-time
thing that never has to be done again as long as you don't
rename a function or method.
Won't AC put those macros in the source file for you?
No, currently it wouldn't know where to look. And that's a good thing
because AC never should modify anything not inbetween "clinic start
generated code" and "clinic end generated code".
So, if I understand correctly, by moving into a sidefile approach, we will have go to a two-pass system? Once to ACify
the file and run Argument Clinic on it, and then again to add in the macros?
Is this basically the same as it was with the buffer approach?
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
