[Python-3000] A better way to initialize PyTypeObject

[Talin]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 
>> Any volunteers? Without code this proposal is dead in the water.
> 
> given that nobody's even bothered to look at Larry's patch for 2.X, it 
> seems to take a bit more than just code to get something into Py3K. 
> Talin obviously suffers from a serious case of NIH, but does that
> really have to apply to the entire Py3K project?

Bear in mind that what I am implementing is *not* my original proposal. 
What I am implementing is the result of the discussion here, which has 
diverged significantly from both your idea and mine.

To summarize the proposals:

-- You originally proposed an API that used numeric constants along with 
a per-method registration function.

-- I originally proposed an API that used numeric constants stored in 
the PyMethodDef table.

Based on the feedback that I've read here, there were concerns / 
criticisms of both approaches. The discussion evolved towards an 
approach that is table-based and uses string identifiers rather than 
numeric constants.

When Guido said "I kind of like this", I'm presuming that this is in 
reference to later proposals, not earlier ones.

Now, I personally don't have a problem with your way of doing it. As you 
pointed out, the code-size differences with functions vs. table entries 
are minimal, and numeric constants are faster to evaluate (although you 
do lose the ability to transparently promote / demote methods to 
'special' status.)

If the BDFL had pronounced favorably on it, I would have been happy to 
support it, and would have dropped the whole issue.

However, that didn't happen. So I decided to create a patch based on 
what I think *can* be approved, although there's no guarantee that it 
actually will be.

So I don't think it's the case that nobody's even bothered to look at 
Larry's patch; People have looked at the patch and suggested taking a 
different approach.

-- Talin