Author loewis
Recipients belopolsky, benjamin.peterson, casevh, georg.brandl, jimjjewett, ked-tao, lemburg, loewis, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, skip.montanaro, tim.peters
Date 2010-10-18.20:46:25
SpamBayes Score 3.52472e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4CBCB220.10904@v.loewis.de>
In-reply-to <AANLkTik8nTEVWaR_o+V8i9JjWzWXKhDWgVUysF9H8qDi@mail.gmail.com>
Content
> Wouldn't it be cleaner if x was the same type as hash?  Note that
> unsigned long is now wrong.  What is needed is "unsigned integer type
> of the same size as Py_hash_t."  If Py_hash_t has to stay signed, I
> think we should at least not rely of sizeof(Py_hash_t) to always
> remain the same as sizeof(size_t).

But this is an absolute requirement, a guarantee that we provide
forever, and the whole point of this patch. Py_hash_t *will* be
a signed version of size_t, just as Py_ssize_t. Not by chance, but
by careful, inherent design.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-10-18 20:46:26loewissetrecipients: + loewis, lemburg, tim.peters, skip.montanaro, georg.brandl, rhettinger, jimjjewett, mark.dickinson, belopolsky, pitrou, casevh, ked-tao, benjamin.peterson
2010-10-18 20:46:25loewislinkissue9778 messages
2010-10-18 20:46:25loewiscreate