[Python-Dev] Proposing "Argument Clinic", a new way of specifying arguments to builtins for CPython
Antoine Pitrou
solipsis at pitrou.net
Tue Dec 4 10:08:51 CET 2012
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Dec 4 10:08:51 CET 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Proposing "Argument Clinic", a new way of specifying arguments to builtins for CPython
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Proposing "Argument Clinic", a new way of specifying arguments to builtins for CPython
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Le Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:29:35 -0800, Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> a écrit : > > /*[clinic] > dbm.open -> mapping > basename=dbmopen > > const char *filename; > The filename to open. So how does it handle the fact that filename can either be a unicode string or a fsencoding-encoded bytestring? And how does it do the right encoding/decoding dance, possibly platform-specific? > static char *_keywords[] = {"filename", "flags", "mode", NULL}; > > if (!PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwargs, > "s|si", _keywords, > &filename, &flags, &mode)) > return NULL; I see, it doesn't :-) > But the biggest unresolved question... is this all actually a terrible > idea? I like the idea, but it needs more polishing. I don't think the various "duck types" accepted by Python can be expressed fully in plain C types (e.g. you must distinguish between taking all kinds of numbers or only an __index__-providing number). Regards Antoine.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Proposing "Argument Clinic", a new way of specifying arguments to builtins for CPython
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Proposing "Argument Clinic", a new way of specifying arguments to builtins for CPython
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list