[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Include co mpile.h,2.38,2.39 parsetok.h,2.19,2.20 pyerrors.h,2.63,2.64 pythonrun.h,2 .55,2.56 symtable.h,2.10,2.11 (original) (raw)
Steve Holden sholden@holdenweb.com
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:47:09 -0500
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Include co mpile.h,2.38,2.39 parsetok.h,2.19,2.20 pyerrors.h,2.63,2.64 pythonrun.h,2 .55,2.56 symtable.h,2.10,2.11
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Include co mpile.h,2.38,2.39 parsetok.h,2.19,2.20 pyerrors.h,2.63,2.64 pythonrun.h,2 .55,2.56 symtable.h,2.10,2.11
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[Martin] > > OTOH, there are more places left that should accept const strings, but > > don't, and I was certainly not out to fix them all. Instead, doing it > > on user request only seems right to me. In the long run, we get happy > > users because of such changes, which should be weighed against the few > > unhappy developers that now have to silence compiler warnings :-)
[MAL] > I would accept that point if you could demonstrate a single > case where the const nature of the filename actually does any > good for the user. Well, it depends how you define "user". When working on win32all, I am a developer. However, when knocking up a simple little extension for Python for some silly reason, I feel more like a user. I'm with Martin on this on; these strings should be const. It has bitten me lots of times. Sometimes as I am implementing someone elses API, am passed a "const char *", but can't simply pass it to Python API functions that clearly treat the string as const. Similarly, I tend to personally use const for my own APIs where possible, so often I do this just to find my const-ness getting in the way. I haven't been very vocal about it as I see both side of the const argument - but personally lean towards the "const is good" camp. > BTW, how can I silence warnings when writing C code that's > supposed to compiler with Python 2.1 and 2.3 ? (passing const char * > to a char * API doesn't work for obvious reasons) This won't be a problem - continue to personally ignore the "const" qualifier. Then you are passing non-const strings to both the non-const 2.2 and the const 2.3. It is only a problem if you want to take advantage of const - and if you object in principle, you probably won't . For the rest of us we just gotta make the same decision we do these days about Python 1.5 etc - and that probably means generally ignoring it for a few years too. Mark.
Folks: I'm just reposting the latest contribution to this thread in an attempt to stop the messages from appearing as attachments. Don't know whether it will work, or why it was happening in the first place
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/ Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/ Previous .sig file retired to www.homeforoldsigs.com
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Include co mpile.h,2.38,2.39 parsetok.h,2.19,2.20 pyerrors.h,2.63,2.64 pythonrun.h,2 .55,2.56 symtable.h,2.10,2.11
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Include co mpile.h,2.38,2.39 parsetok.h,2.19,2.20 pyerrors.h,2.63,2.64 pythonrun.h,2 .55,2.56 symtable.h,2.10,2.11
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]