Message186369
Oh, and, yes, it's true that Py_RETURN_NONE currently takes advantage of Py_INCREF being an rvalue, and changing Py_INCREF to a statement would break the existing implementation. But Py_RETURN_NONE itself is of necessity a statement. We would simply change Py_RETURN_NONE's implementation to multiple statements, probably with the do { ... } while(0) trick, so it worked again. I'd be shocked if that change broke any existing code. So that's no big deal.
Having external code that depends on Py_INCREF being an rvalue is my concern, and what I hoped you'd bring up on bug #17206. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2013-04-09 02:15:15 | larry | set | recipients:
+ larry, loewis, georg.brandl, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, docs@python, Mark.Shannon |
2013-04-09 02:15:15 | larry | set | messageid: <1365473715.63.0.831379237333.issue17589@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2013-04-09 02:15:15 | larry | link | issue17589 messages |
2013-04-09 02:15:15 | larry | create | |
|