Message238658
Serhiy: Thanks for looking at this!
I think it should fall in the same category as Py_RETURN_TRUE or Py_RETURN_NONE. Sure, it's easy to reimplement, but a lot of extensions need it; why should everyone need to write the same code in a dozen different ways?
I specifically want this usable in third-party code.
The implementation of Py_RICHCOMPARE is in the first patch. The second is example use.
The signature mirrors richcmpfunc. Why would op be better as first argument?
Stefan: Which optimizer should I look at? Is it important to generate the same code?
Sorry if I'm asking for something obvious, I'm not a regular here. |
|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2015-03-20 12:43:31 | petr.viktorin | set | recipients:
+ petr.viktorin, skrah, ethan.furman, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2015-03-20 12:43:30 | petr.viktorin | set | messageid: <[email protected]> |
| 2015-03-20 12:43:30 | petr.viktorin | link | issue23699 messages |
| 2015-03-20 12:43:30 | petr.viktorin | create | |
|