Author larry
Recipients Mark.Shannon, amaury.forgeotdarc, docs@python, georg.brandl, larry, loewis, mark.dickinson, pitrou
Date 2013-04-09.02:15:15
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1365473715.63.0.831379237333.issue17589@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-04-09 02:15:15larrysetrecipients: + larry, loewis, georg.brandl, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, docs@python, Mark.Shannon
2013-04-09 02:15:15larrysetmessageid: <1365473715.63.0.831379237333.issue17589@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-04-09 02:15:15larrylinkissue17589 messages
2013-04-09 02:15:15larrycreate