On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:

>Contestant 5: "Put in __clinic__ directory, add .h"
>
>    foo.c -> __clinic__/foo.c.h
>    foo.h -> __clinic__/foo.h.h

This is cached output right?

Yes, it's generated entirely based on data provided in original source file.
 
">

(original) (raw)




On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:

\>Contestant 5: "Put in \_\_clinic\_\_ directory, add .h"
\>
\> foo.c -> \_\_clinic\_\_/foo.c.h
\> foo.h -> \_\_clinic\_\_/foo.h.h

This is cached output right?

Yes, it's generated entirely based on data provided in original source file.

IOW, it can be regenerated if it's missing. If

so, this seems like a nice parallel to __pycache__. It's mostly hidden until

you want to go looking for it.


More-or-less. The key difference is you will most likely look at the generated file *once* to copy-and-paste the relevant macros to paste into your source file for use (e.g. the relevant MethodDef stuff). But it's a one-time thing that never has to be done again as long as you don't rename a function or method.