Message372129
> Also, later, these structures may change to be more efficient.
Tuples? Really?
Ok, quoting PEP-620:
> Members of … PyTupleObject structures have not changed since the "Initial revision" commit (1990)
I honestly think the reason for that might simply be that there's not so much to improve for tuples.
> nothing prevents a C extension to get or set directly
> PyTupleObject.ob_item[0] (the first item of a tuple).
I certainly understand that that is a problem, especially if "PyObject" may change in the future. And this is essentially what the current "PyTuple_GET_ITEM()" macro does in a binary module.
Should we also turn "_PyTuple_ITEMS()" into a public inline function then to make up for the loss of the "&PyTuple_GET_ITEM(t, 0)" pattern? It would make it explicit what is intended. I think that should be our main goal in the CPython side. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-06-22 22:20:18 | scoder | set | recipients:
+ scoder, vstinner |
2020-06-22 22:20:18 | scoder | set | messageid: <1592864418.72.0.983145574701.issue41078@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-06-22 22:20:18 | scoder | link | issue41078 messages |
2020-06-22 22:20:18 | scoder | create | |
|