[Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up (original) (raw)

Ivan Pozdeev vano at mail.mipt.ru
Tue Jun 26 07:11:14 EDT 2018

On 26.06.2018 12:00, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:

Hello,

On https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/7909 I encountered friction for a PR which I expected to be uncontroversial: it just moves some code without changing any functionality. So basically my question is: is there some CPython policy against refactoring code to make it easier to read and write? (Note that I'm not talking about pure style issues here) Background: cpython has a source file "call.c" (introduced in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/12) but the corresponding declarations are split over several .h files. While working on PEP 580, I found this slightly confusing. I decided that it would make more sense to group all these declarations in a new file "call.h". That's what PR 7909 does. In my opinion, the resulting code is easier to read. It also defines a clear place for declarations of future functionality added to "call.c" (for example, if we add a public API for FASTCALL). Finally, I added/clarified a few comments. I expected the PR to be either ignored or accepted. However, I received a negative reaction from Inada Naoki on it. I don't mind closing the PR and keeping the status quo if there is a general agreement. However, I'm afraid that a future reviewer of PEP 580 might say "your includes are a mess" and he will be right. AFAICS, your PR is not a strict improvement, that's the reason for the "friction". You may suggest it as a supplemental PR to PEP 580. Or even a part of it, but since the changes are controversial, better make the refactorings into separate commits so they can be rolled back separately if needed.

Jeroen.

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/vano%40mail.mipt.ru

-- Regards, Ivan

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list