Message377266
> If you disagree with me, please say why, don't just merge the PR.
Apologies, Mark. I didn't intend to merge something bypassing your opinion; just missed your comment between reviewing multiple PRs in a few unrelated repos. I'm sorry.
On the actual naming subject, you proposed:
> `PySendResult PyIter_Send(PyObject *obj, PyObject *arg, PyObject **result);`
The problem with using this name is that ideally we should also support non-native coroutine and generator implementations (i.e. resolve the "send" attribute and call it using Python calling convention). Ideally we should have two C APIs: one low-level supporting only native objects and a high level one, supporting all kinds of them.
Can we perhaps add both `PyGen_Send()` and `PyCoro_Send()` for now that would only accept generators and coroutines respectively? After that we can discuss adding a more generic `PyIter_Send`?
> Would you revert the PR, please.
Since this is in 3.10/master that nobody uses right now except us (Python core devs), can we just issue a follow up PR to fix whatever is there to fix? I'd like to avoid the churn of reverting, and again, I apologize for pushing this a bit hastily. Let me know if you actually want a revert and I'll do that. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-09-21 18:36:08 | yselivanov | set | recipients:
+ yselivanov, scoder, lukasz.langa, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, v2m |
2020-09-21 18:36:08 | yselivanov | set | messageid: <1600713368.26.0.646855902289.issue41756@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-09-21 18:36:08 | yselivanov | link | issue41756 messages |
2020-09-21 18:36:07 | yselivanov | create | |
|