[Python-Dev] Proposing "Argument Clinic", a new way of specifying arguments to builtins for CPython
brett at python.org
Tue Dec 4 22:45:54 CET 2012
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
> > On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:04:09 -0800
> > Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
> >> Along these lines, I've been contemplating proposing that Clinic
> >> specifically understand "path" arguments, distinctly from other string
> >> arguments, as they are both common and rarely handled correctly. My
> >> main fear is that I probably don't understand all their complexities
> >> either ;-)
> >> Anyway, this is certainly something we can consider *improving* for
> >> Python 3.4. But for now I'm trying to make Clinic an indistinguishable
> >> drop-in replacement.
> > [...]
> >> Naturally I agree Clinic needs more polishing. But the problem you fear
> >> is already solved. Clinic allows precisely expressing any existing
> >> PyArg_ "format unit"** through a combination of the type of the
> >> parameter and its "flags".
> > Very nice then! Your work is promising, and I hope we'll see a version
> > of it some day in Python 3.4 (or 3.4+k).
> +1 for getting this into 3.4. Does it need a PEP, or just a bug
> tracker item + code review? I think the latter is fine -- it's
> probably better not to do too much bikeshedding but just to let Larry
> propose a patch, have it reviewed and submitted, and then iterate.
> It's also okay if it is initially used for only a subset of extension
> modules (and even if some functions/methods can't be expressed using
> it yet).
I don't see a need for a PEP either; code review should be plenty since
this doesn't change how the outside world views public APIs. And we can
convert code iteratively so that shouldn't hold things up either.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev