Message142231
> The code review links point to something weird.
That's because I posted a patch for another issue. It's the patch set 5, not the patch set 6 :-)
Direct link:
http://bugs.python.org/review/10542/patch/3174/9874
> My first impression is that your patch does not accomplish much beyond
> replacing some literal expressions with macros.
Yes, and it avoids the duplication of some code patterns, as explained in my message. I would like to avoid constants in the code. Some macros are *a little bit* faster than the current code.
> What I wanted to achieve with this issue was to enable writing code
> without #ifdef Py_UNICODE_WIDE branches.
Yes, and I think that it's better to split this issue in two steps:
1- add macros for the surrogates (test, join, ...)
2- Py_UNICODE_NEXT()
> In your patch these branches seem to still be there
> and in fact it appears that new code is longer than the old one
Yes, the code adds more lines than it removes. Is it a problem? My goal is to have more readable code (easier to maintain). |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-08-16 22:10:11 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, georg.brandl, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti, tchrist |
2011-08-16 22:10:11 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1313532611.37.0.673492554481.issue10542@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-08-16 22:10:10 | vstinner | link | issue10542 messages |
2011-08-16 22:10:10 | vstinner | create | |
|