Author vstinner
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, doerwalter, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, rhettinger, stutzbach, tchrist, vstinner
Date 2011-08-16.22:10:10
SpamBayes Score 1.21973e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1313532611.37.0.673492554481.issue10542@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> 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).
History
Date User Action Args
2011-08-16 22:10:11vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, georg.brandl, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti, tchrist
2011-08-16 22:10:11vstinnersetmessageid: <1313532611.37.0.673492554481.issue10542@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-08-16 22:10:10vstinnerlinkissue10542 messages
2011-08-16 22:10:10vstinnercreate