This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

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 1.2197349e-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