Message234460
Good catch.
CALL_FUNCTION seems to split its opcode into two to give it a positional-keyword pair so this seems fine. I'd hope we can do the same thing; personally I would do:
BUILD_MAP_UNPACK(
position_of_function_in_stack_or_0 << 8 |
number_to_pack
)
This way if building for a function we can do the check *and* give good errors that match the ones raised from CALL_FUNCTION. When the top 8 bits are 0, we don't do checks. What do you think? Would dual-usage be too confusing? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2015-01-22 01:44:34 | Joshua.Landau | set | recipients:
+ Joshua.Landau, gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, paul.moore, ncoghlan, belopolsky, giampaolo.rodola, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, andybuckley, r.david.murray, zbysz, eric.snow, Rosuav, berker.peksag, pconnell, NeilGirdhar, Jeff.Kaufman, SpaghettiToastBook |
2015-01-22 01:44:34 | Joshua.Landau | set | messageid: <1421891074.64.0.402880069054.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2015-01-22 01:44:34 | Joshua.Landau | link | issue2292 messages |
2015-01-22 01:44:34 | Joshua.Landau | create | |
|