On 11/19/2017 12:50 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
But if PyTuple_GET_ITEM() is used for getting a reference to a C array
of items it can't be replaced with PyTuple_GetItem(). And actually there
is no replacement for this case in the limited API.
PyObject **items = &PyTuple_GET_ITEM(tuple, 0)
19.11.17 12:59, Antoine Pitrou пише:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 00:18:28 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 18 nov. 2017 10:44, "Serhiy Storchaka" a écrit :
The simplest way to do this:
#define PyTuple_GET_ITEM PyTuple_GetItem
This will not add new names to ABI. Such defines can be added in a separate
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 00:18:28 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le 18 nov. 2017 10:44, "Serhiy Storchaka" a écrit :
>
> The simplest way to do this:
>
> #define PyTuple_GET_ITEM PyTuple_GetItem
>
> This will not add new names to ABI. Such defines can be added in a separate
> header file included fo
Le 18 nov. 2017 10:44, "Serhiy Storchaka" a écrit :
The simplest way to do this:
#define PyTuple_GET_ITEM PyTuple_GetItem
This will not add new names to ABI. Such defines can be added in a separate
header file included for compatibility.
It is exactly what I am proposing :-)
Victor
_
Your email didn't compile. The compiler says that it's a naming conflict,
but actually I think you forgot a semicolon! (Don't worry, it happens to
all of us, whether we be happy or not :-)
--Koos
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tl; dr I propose to extend the ex
On 18 November 2017 at 23:50, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 18 November 2017 at 11:05, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> tl; dr I propose to extend the existing "stable API" to make it almost
>> as complete as the current API. For example, add back
>> PyTuple_GET_ITEM() to be stable API, but it becom
On 18 November 2017 at 11:05, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tl; dr I propose to extend the existing "stable API" to make it almost
> as complete as the current API. For example, add back
> PyTuple_GET_ITEM() to be stable API, but it becomes a function call
> rather than a macro. The final questi
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:13:36 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Anyway, the PyTuple_GET_ITEM() will remain a macro in the default API for
> Python 3.7.
>
> See also my blog post which explains why the fact that it is a macro
> prevents us from optimizing it, like having specialized compact tuple fo
I agree with Serhiy. It doesn't make sense to add PyTuple_GET_ITEM to
the stable ABI. People who want to benefit from the stable ABI should
use PyTuple_GetItem. That's not very complicated.
Regards
Antoine.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:42:36 +0200
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 18.11.17 11:13, Victo
18.11.17 11:13, Victor Stinner пише:
The idea behind adding PyTuple_GET_ITEM() is to be able to compile C
extensions using it, without having to modify the code.
The simplest way to do this:
#define PyTuple_GET_ITEM PyTuple_GetItem
This will not add new names to ABI. Such defines can be added
Le 18 nov. 2017 08:32, "Serhiy Storchaka" a écrit :
Making PyTuple_GET_ITEM() a function will destroy the half of the benefit.
And this will make the ABI larger.
Sorry if I wasn't explicit about it: my idea of changing the API has an
obvious impact on performance. That's why the first step on t
18.11.17 03:05, Victor Stinner пише:
tl; dr I propose to extend the existing "stable API" to make it almost
as complete as the current API. For example, add back
PyTuple_GET_ITEM() to be stable API, but it becomes a function call
rather than a macro. The final question is if it's not too late to
Hi,
tl; dr I propose to extend the existing "stable API" to make it almost
as complete as the current API. For example, add back
PyTuple_GET_ITEM() to be stable API, but it becomes a function call
rather than a macro. The final question is if it's not too late to
iterate on an implementation of th
13 matches
Mail list logo
