On 24 December 2015 at 00:50, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22.12.15 18:36, Meador Inge wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com >> <mailto:storch...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 21.12.15 23:57, Steve Dower wrote: >> >> Was Py_MOVEREF (or MOVE_REF) ever suggested? >> >> >> This would be nice name. The macro moves the ownership. But I think >> it's too late. Otherwise we'll never finish the bikeshedding. >> >> >> FWIW, I like this name the best. It is increasingly popular for >> languages to talk about moving ownership (e.g. move semantics in C++, >> Rust, etc...). > > > Oh, I'm confused. Should I make a new poll? With new voters Py_MOVEREF can > get more votes than Py_SETREF.
Within the Python context, the analogy from setattr and setitem at the Python level to Py_SETREF at the C level is pretty solid, so it likely makes sense to run with that as "good enough". In regards to Py_MOVEREF, while other languages are starting to pay more attention to "MOVE" semantics, we haven't really done so in Python yet (moving references in Rust isn't the same thing we're talking about here - this is just normal runtime reference counting). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
