Message169951
| Author |
Alexander.Belopolsky |
| Recipients |
Alexander.Belopolsky, Robin.Schreiber, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, loewis |
| Date |
2012年09月06日.22:47:47 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1B2A3388-0D69-4999-BFDA-86E5101A5260@gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1346970348.9.0.769750937748.issue15870@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Martin v. Löwis <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> I'm -1 on calling it PyType_FromSpecEx.
I find it encouraging that you commented on the choice of name. :-) I can live with PyType_FromMetatypeAndSpec and leave out bases. PyType_FromTypeAndSpec is fine too.
On the substance, I don't think this API is just convenience. In my application I have to replace meta type after my type is created with PyType_FromSpec. This is fragile and works only for very simple metatypes.
Let's get back to this discussion once I have a ctypes patch. I there will be a work-around for ctypes it will probably work for my case. (My case is a little bit more complicated because I extend the size of my type objects to store custom metadata. Ctypes fudge this issue by hiding extra data in a custom tp_dict. ) |
|