Sorry to bringing this up again. I was hoping we were done with that.
When discussing the name of the Py_SETREF macro I was supposed to add a
pair of macros: for Py_DECREF and Py_XDECREF. But I got a lot of
opinions to be limited to only one macro.
On 28.02.14 15:58, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> Also, for the equivalence to hold there is no separate Py_XSETREF, the X
> behaviour is implied, which I favour. Enough of this X-proliferation
> already!
On 16.12.15 16:53, Random832 wrote:
> I think "SET" names imply that it's safe if the original
> reference is NULL. This isn't an objection to the names, but if
> it is given one of those names I think it should use Py_XDECREF.
It was my initial intension. But then I had got a number of voices for
single macros.
On 16.12.15 23:16, Victor Stinner wrote:
> I would prefer a single macro to avoid bugs, I don't think that such
> macro has a critical impact on performances. It's more designed for
> safety, no?
On 17.12.15 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> 1. Py_SETREF
>
> +1 if it always uses Py_XDECREF on the previous value (as I'd expect
> this to work even if the previous value was NULL)
There was no (besides my) clearly expressed vote for two macros.
As a result I have replaced both Py_DECREF and Py_XDECREF with the macro
that always uses Py_XDECREF.
Now Raymond, who was not involved in the previous discussions, expressed
the view that we should to rename Py_SETREF to Py_XSETREF and add new
Py_SETREF that uses Py_DECREF for using in the code that used Py_DECREF
previously. [1]
We should discuss the need for this, and may be re-discuss the names for
the macros.
[1] http://bugs.python.org/issue26200
_______________________________________________
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
