> > > 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
