> > > I think it should be ok because it's never used
> > > really as a PyObject. Am I missing something? (Ok, I now thought
that
> > > maybe it's because some parts don't treat dummy elements
specially.
> > > But it seems to me that most parts do treat them specially, so
perhaps
> > > it would be
> The setentry typedef clearly violates the principles of the API, so
> it should be renamed.
In my next update, will rename it to match the Py or _Py convention.
Raymond
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman
Noam Raphael wrote:
>>The setentry typedef clearly violates the principles of the API, so
>>it should be renamed.
>
> (And so will _setobject, although I think it will be much easier to remove
> it.)
That's not that certain. setentry is a typedef; _setobject is a tag
name of a struct. The docume
On 12/28/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The setentry typedef clearly violates the principles of the API, so
> it should be renamed.
(And so will _setobject, although I think it will be much easier to remove it.)
>
> > Perhaps the header file should stick
> > with writing "stru
Noam Raphael wrote:
> Is this desirable?
Not sure what "this" refers to in your message: the text of the C API
documentation certainly is desirable as it stands (although it should
be clearer as to whether struct names should be prefixed).
The setentry typedef clearly violates the principles of
Hello,
I'm going over setobject.c/setobject.h, while trying to change them to
support cheap frozen-copying. I have a few questions.
1) This is a part of setobject.h:
typedef struct {
long hash;
PyObject *key;
} setentry;
typedef struct _setobject PySetObject;
struct _setobject {
