Re: [Python-Dev] cpython: Uniformize argument names of "call" functions
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98c42/98c429f8854de54c6dfbbe14b9c99e430e0e4b7d" alt=""
On 29.11.16 19:58, victor.stinner wrote:
This change looks wrong to me. "callable" and "callable_object" are better names for functions like PyObject_Call(), since it supports not just functions, but any callables. "name" is appropriate name of the parameter that denotes a method name, not a method object.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3d87/b3d872f9a7bbdbbdbd3c3390589970e6df22385a" alt=""
2016-11-30 10:01 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>:
(Oh no, I avoided a review to try to avoid bikeshedding...) I tried to be consistent between argument names and function names. For example, I expect that you have to pass a *function* to PyObject_CallFunction(), and that you have to pass a *method* to PyObject_CallMethod(). -- In third party code, I don't recall having seen a variable called "callable" (or they are very rare?). In the stdlib, "func" is much more common than "callable", raw statistics (default branch): $ grep '\<func\>' Lib/*.py|wc -l 318 $ grep '\<callable\>' Lib/*.py|wc -l 115 In CPython C code, "func" is also more common than "callable" (3.5 branch): $ grep '\<func\>' */*.c|wc -l 725 $ grep '\<callable\>' */*.c|wc -l 126 My concern is not to be accurate in the variable name, just to use a convenient, short and common name to *uniformize* the code. Victor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98c42/98c429f8854de54c6dfbbe14b9c99e430e0e4b7d" alt=""
On 30.11.16 11:15, Victor Stinner wrote:
Actually it looked as a red flag to me.
You have to pass a *callable object* to PyObject_CallFunction(), and that you have to pass a method *name* to PyObject_CallMethod(). It would be better to roll back the commit. Other changes looks not well justified too. We can start new discussion about uniform names after that.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3d87/b3d872f9a7bbdbbdbd3c3390589970e6df22385a" alt=""
I reverted my change and reposted the change as a patch: http://bugs.python.org/issue28838 Victor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3d87/b3d872f9a7bbdbbdbd3c3390589970e6df22385a" alt=""
2016-11-30 10:01 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>:
(Oh no, I avoided a review to try to avoid bikeshedding...) I tried to be consistent between argument names and function names. For example, I expect that you have to pass a *function* to PyObject_CallFunction(), and that you have to pass a *method* to PyObject_CallMethod(). -- In third party code, I don't recall having seen a variable called "callable" (or they are very rare?). In the stdlib, "func" is much more common than "callable", raw statistics (default branch): $ grep '\<func\>' Lib/*.py|wc -l 318 $ grep '\<callable\>' Lib/*.py|wc -l 115 In CPython C code, "func" is also more common than "callable" (3.5 branch): $ grep '\<func\>' */*.c|wc -l 725 $ grep '\<callable\>' */*.c|wc -l 126 My concern is not to be accurate in the variable name, just to use a convenient, short and common name to *uniformize* the code. Victor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98c42/98c429f8854de54c6dfbbe14b9c99e430e0e4b7d" alt=""
On 30.11.16 11:15, Victor Stinner wrote:
Actually it looked as a red flag to me.
You have to pass a *callable object* to PyObject_CallFunction(), and that you have to pass a method *name* to PyObject_CallMethod(). It would be better to roll back the commit. Other changes looks not well justified too. We can start new discussion about uniform names after that.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3d87/b3d872f9a7bbdbbdbd3c3390589970e6df22385a" alt=""
I reverted my change and reposted the change as a patch: http://bugs.python.org/issue28838 Victor
participants (2)
-
Serhiy Storchaka
-
Victor Stinner