bpo-37812: Expand CHECK_BINOP to make an (almost) explicit return.#15448
Closed
gnprice wants to merge 2 commits into
python:masterpython/cpython:masterfrom
gnprice:pr-explicit-return-notimplementedgnprice/cpython:pr-explicit-return-notimplementedCopy head branch name to clipboard
Closed
bpo-37812: Expand CHECK_BINOP to make an (almost) explicit return.#15448gnprice wants to merge 2 commits intopython:masterpython/cpython:masterfrom gnprice:pr-explicit-return-notimplementedgnprice/cpython:pr-explicit-return-notimplementedCopy head branch name to clipboard
gnprice wants to merge 2 commits into
python:masterpython/cpython:masterfrom
gnprice:pr-explicit-return-notimplementedgnprice/cpython:pr-explicit-return-notimplementedCopy head branch name to clipboard
Conversation
OK, `Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED` isn't quite an explicit `return` statement either... but it does have the word "return" in there. That makes it a lot easier to notice when scanning through the code, and once noticed, it makes it unambiguous that what it's going to do is return.
aeros
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2019
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR @gnprice.
Overall, I agree with the changes, I definitely prefer the more explicit pseudo returns. As far as I can tell, this does not modify the logic (unlike the proposed PR for CHECK_SMALL_INT)
/cc @rhettinger
I just have a minor suggestion for the news entry:
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| The ``CHECK_BINOP`` macro inside :file:`Object/longobject.c` has been | ||
| replaced with an explicit :c:macro:`Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED` at each call | ||
| site, inside an ordinary ``if``. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the Misc/NEWS entry could be a bit more succinct:
The ``CHECK_BINOP`` macro in :file:`Object/longobject.c` has been replaced by
using explicit :c:macro:`Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED`s.
For more details, readers can look at the changes made to longobject.c.
|
If change the check order: - CHECK_BINOP(a, b);
+ CHECK_BINOP(b, a);Will it be a little bit faster when the check fails? |
Contributor
|
See comments on the tracker. I'd like to not churn correct code for minor aesthetic reasons. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
OK,
Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTEDisn't quite an explicitreturnstatement either... but it does have the word "return" in there.
That makes it a lot easier to notice when scanning through the code,
and once noticed, it makes it unambiguous that what it's going to do
is return.
https://bugs.python.org/issue37812