[Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?
Antoine Pitrou
antoine at python.org
Mon Aug 4 20:37:54 CEST 2014
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Mon Aug 4 20:37:54 CEST 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Le 04/08/2014 14:18, Larry Hastings a écrit : > > On 08/05/2014 03:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Le 04/08/2014 13:36, Alexander Belopolsky a écrit : >>> If the receiving type is PyObject*, either NULL or Py_None is a valid >>> choice. >> But here the receiving type can be an int. > > Just to be precise: in the case where the receiving type *would* have > been an int, and "nullable=True", the receiving type is actually a > structure containing an int and a "you got a None" flag. I can't stick a > magic value in the int and say "that represents you getting a None" > because any integer value may be valid. > > Also, I'm pretty sure there are places in builtin argument parsing that > accept either NULL or Py_None, and I *think* maybe in one or two of them > they actually mean different things. What fun! > > > For small values of "fun", Is -909 too large a value to be fun? Regards Antoine.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list