It's also not something we're stuck with forever - we can start with it inline (which has the advantage of keeping all the code in the same place), and later move to having the helpers in a separate file included from the implementation file if we decide it makes sense to do so.

">

(original) (raw)


On 6 Jan 2014 05:54, "Larry Hastings" <larry@hastings.org> wrote:
\>
\> On 01/05/2014 01:49 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
\>>
\>> But I very much upset by the fact that the generated code is written mixed with written manually. It is difficult to navigate (list of symbols now contains three times more names), makes it difficult to read and provokes error (editing the generated code). It would be better if the generated code was written in separate files.

>

>

> I had that working at one point.� Guido said no, keep it all in one file.� I'm flexible but first you'd have to convince him.

It's also not something we're stuck with forever - we can start with it inline (which has the advantage of keeping all the code in the same place), and later move to having the helpers in a separate file included from the implementation file if we decide it makes sense to do so.

This was discussed a fair bit last language summit (and the day after between me, Guido and Larry), and the thing I like about the current approach is that a C coder should be able to understand the generated code \*as C code\* without needing to know anything about Argument Clinic and without needing to hunt through other files to find where the generated pieces are defined.

As Terry noted, even if we just get "help(name)" working properly for the builtins, I'll count that as a major win.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
\> Cheers,
\>
\>
\> /arry
\>
\> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\> Python-Dev mailing list
\> Python-Dev@python.org
\> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
\> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
\>