On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 10:50 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 4/28/2015 2:13 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> > > #define Py_RETURN_RICHCOMPARE(val1, val2, op)
> > > \
> > > > do {
> > > > \
> > > > switch (op) {
> > > > \
> > > > case Py_EQ: if ((val1) == (val2)) Py_RETURN_TRUE;
> > > > Py_RETURN_FALSE; \
> > > > case Py_NE: if ((val1) != (val2)) Py_RETURN_TRUE;
> > > > Py_RETURN_FALSE; \
> > > > case Py_LT: if ((val1) < (val2)) Py_RETURN_TRUE;
> > > > Py_RETURN_FALSE; \
> > > > case Py_GT: if ((val1) > (val2)) Py_RETURN_TRUE;
> > > > Py_RETURN_FALSE; \
> > > > case Py_LE: if ((val1) <= (val2)) Py_RETURN_TRUE;
> > > > Py_RETURN_FALSE; \
> > > > case Py_GE: if ((val1) >= (val2)) Py_RETURN_TRUE;
> > > > Py_RETURN_FALSE; \
> > > > }
> > > > \
> > > > Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED;
> > > > \
> > > > } while (0)
> > I would prefer a function for that:
> >
> > PyObject *Py_RichCompare(long val1, long2, int op);
> Why would you prefer a function? As a macro, when the op is a
> constant, most of the code would be optimized away by a decent
> compiler.
>
> I suppose when the op is not a constant, then a function would save
> code space.
>
> So I suppose it depends on the predominant use cases.
There's also the possibility of wrapping C++ code that uses overloaded
operators: having it as a macro could allow those C++ operators to be be
mapped into Python.
Hope this is constructive
Dave
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
