Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 05/14/2015 06:50 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> c_type() is designed to be called on both string names and on >> array designations, so 'name' is a bit misleading because it >> operates on more than strings. Also, no caller ever passes >> an empty string. Finally, + notation is a bit nicer to read >> than '%s' % value for string concatenation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> >> --- > >> else: >> - return '%s *%s' % (name, eatspace) >> + # complex type name >> + assert isinstance(value, str) and str != "" > > D'oh - that should be 'value != ""'.
You're right! Missed it in my review... I'll fix it up on commit. While there, I'll indulge in a bit of OCD and append () to c_type in the subject, if you don't mind.
