Message272143
Thanks for your reply Raymond. You always provide thoughtful feedbacks, though it makes me somewhat more nervous. ;) (I am nervous about making noise here and waste others' time.)
> Have you checked all the possibly code paths to be sure?
Yes. I did check all the code paths. I don't want to be a noise maker so I did check it carefully.
> "Seems to be unnecessary" is insufficient reason for undoing Guido's code that has stood since 1997.
I use the word "seems" because even if I think my opinion is right, I am only 99% sure. Just as you said, the code is legacy and changing it has to be careful. I can miss something and be wrong. But now I think I am right.
> Looking at the snarl of possible code paths, I not finding it obvious why some of the paths require Py_XDECREF and others don't.
When we reach the two Py_XDECREFs, can type and value be NULL?
> then the patch needs to include assertions at key checkpoints (i.e. after a given assignment to "type" or "value" can we reliably assert the value is non-null) and/or comments showing what the reasoning is
Sorry, I didn't realize that. This is definitely good practice I know. But this is not documented and not a must then so I didn't do that. But I'll remember this in later patches. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-08-08 03:05:07 | xiang.zhang | set | recipients:
+ xiang.zhang, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka |
2016-08-08 03:05:07 | xiang.zhang | set | messageid: <1470625507.51.0.39850156958.issue27703@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-08-08 03:05:07 | xiang.zhang | link | issue27703 messages |
2016-08-08 03:05:06 | xiang.zhang | create | |
|