Message290891
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
eric.snow, ncoghlan, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2017年03月31日.04:04:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1490933044.22.0.503312409753.issue29881@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I'm +1 for _Py_SET_FINALIZED with the semantics Serhiy suggests, and +0 for _Py_SET_ONCE.
My rationale for that preference is that _Py_SET_ONCE is a misnomer in the presence of
* multiple Py_Initialize/Py_Finalize cycles; and/or
* _Py_SETREF calls that replace the value to be finalized
while _Py_SET_FINALIZED remains accurate in both cases. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年03月31日 04:04:04 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, vstinner, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2017年03月31日 04:04:04 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1490933044.22.0.503312409753.issue29881@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年03月31日 04:04:04 | ncoghlan | link | issue29881 messages |
| 2017年03月31日 04:04:03 | ncoghlan | create |
|