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 skrah
Recipients Arfrever, Jim.Jewett, Trundle, alex, asvetlov, barry, bfroehle, chris.jerdonek, daniel.urban, david.villa, dmalcolm, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, jcea, jkloth, larry, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, skrah, v+python
Date 2013-02-13.19:30:51
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
Jim Jewett <> wrote:
> (1)  The first several lines ( "/* pymacro.h */" until "/* could go into a separate header file */" ) would not be written at all, and are just there to help reviewers understand.

Yes, they should ultimately go into Include/pymacro.h.

> (2)  The "#define OS_STAT_DOC ..." line is the docstring, and would be needed, but could easily go into a separate header file, like os_stat__doc.h.  For something like cdecimal, there might be only a single _cdecimal__doc.h containing all the docstrings.  There might even be a build switch that (at a minimum) replaced anything from those __doc.h files with "" for space-constrained builds.

Yes, it's supposed to be the main part of the docstring. The docstring header
containing the function signature would be autogenerated.

> (3)  The human-maintained code would be the DSL between "/*[preprocessor]" and "[preprocessor]*/".


> (4)  The lines between "[preprocessor]*/" and "/*[preprocessor end:f3e6b328245207c240825782d908d3ff3a9c11c0]*/" would NOT be written or maintained by a human, but WOULD be checked into hg for the benefit builders without the argument-clinic tool.

Yes, all that code would be generated by

> (5)  The only C code written or maintained by a human (or another macro system) would be the last 5 lines (the system call, the path cleanup, and the return).


> If I'm correct, then your proposal boils down to
> (1)  Allow (require?) the function-level docstring to be defined somewhere else, possibly in another file.


> (2)  Change the DSL
>   (2a)  Get rid of function flags?  (Not sure this is workable)

I didn't intend to but you're right, they were missing.

>   (2b)  Replace the (previously proposed) parameter declarations with literal C code forming an array of [parameter kind, array-of-setup-instructions-and-or-magically-named-variable-settings]

Regarding the DSL: I wanted to change the syntax, not the functionality.
Unfortunately, as Antoine pointed out, I didn't get it quite right.

(2b): Perhaps I misunderstand, but the snippets of literal C code are also
present in Larry's original:

os.stat -> stat result

    path_t path = PATH_T_INITIALIZE("stat", 0, 1);

    int dir_fd = DEFAULT_DIR_FD;

    int follow_symlinks = 1;

The motivation for trying to change the DSL is that I'd like to see
a) something that looks more like a C declaration, b) something that
is easily compressible vertically and c) some visual hints that
subdivide the declaration into sections.
Date User Action Args
2013-02-13 19:30:51skrahsetrecipients: + skrah, gvanrossum, barry, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, larry, eric.smith, jkloth, ezio.melotti, Arfrever, v+python, alex, Trundle, asvetlov, dmalcolm, daniel.urban, chris.jerdonek, Jim.Jewett, bfroehle, david.villa
2013-02-13 19:30:51skrahlinkissue16612 messages
2013-02-13 19:30:51skrahcreate