On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> Has this been considered before? Was there a reason to decide against it? > > I think we simply didn't consider it. An early version of the PEP used > the lower bits for the pointer to encode the kind, in which case it even > stopped being a pointer. Modules are not expected to access this > pointer except through the macros, so it may not matter that much. > > OTOH, it's certainly not too late to change it.
It would make the macro implementations a bit clearer, so +1 for the union approach from me. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
