[Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?
alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Mon Aug 4 20:04:05 CEST 2014
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote:
> I disagree. Unlike "nullable", "allow_none" does not tell me what
>> happens on the C side when I pass in None. If the receiving type is
>> PyObject*, either NULL or Py_None is a valid choice.
> But here the receiving type can be an int.
We cannot "allow None" when the receiving type is C int. In this case, we
need a way to implement "nullable int" type in C. We can use int * or a
pair of int and _Bool or anything else. Whatever the implementation, the
concept that is implemented is "nullable int." The advantage of using the
term "nullable" is that it is language and implementation neutral.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev