On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> AFAICT, often with True and False: >> >> x = (some condition) ? Py_True : Py_False; >> Py_INCREF(x); >> return x; > > And that's an idiom that works better with a Py_RETURN macro than it > would separate macros: > > Py_RETURN(cond ? Py_True : Py_False); > > OK, I'm persuaded that "Py_RETURN(Py_NotImplemented);" would be a > better way to handle this change: +1
I don't think that is worth it. There is some value to keeping the API consistent with the style that has been used in the past. So, I vote for Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED. There's no real need to factor this any further. It's not hard and not important enough to introduce a new variation on return macros. Adding another return style makes the C API harder to learn and remember. If we we're starting from scratch, Py_RETURN(obj) would make sense. But we're not starting from scratch, so we should stick with the precedents. Raymond
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
