bpo-1635741: Port symtable module to multiphase initialization #23361
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Christian Heimes <christian@python.org>
tiran
changed the title
tiran
force-pushed
the
bpo-1635741-symtable
branch
from
ee17c63
to
bb7961b
Compare
| static int | ||
| symtable_init_stentry_type(PyObject *m) | ||
| { | ||
| return PyType_Ready(&PySTEntry_Type); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the value of having two exec slots. Why not simply putting all exec code into a single function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They do different things. Also PySTEntry_Type is define somewhere else and we might want to move the type initialization when the PySTEntry_Type is refactored.
|
|
||
| static int | ||
| symtable_init_constants(PyObject *m) | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm trying to slowly use macros to factorize the code, something like:
#define ADD_INT(value) \
if (PyModule_AddIntConstant(module, #value, value) < 0) { \
return -1; \
}
A more generic machinery like the one you proposed would avoid such macro, and until there is such API, IMO using a macro makes the code more readable:
ADD_INT(USE);
You can add a second macro for PyModule_AddIntConstant() calls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather not spend more time then necessary. This was a simple search and replace job.
Let's consider refactoring after PyModuleConstants_Def from #23286 has landed. The new feature will make module constant definitions easier.
…nGH-23361) Signed-off-by: Christian Heimes <christian@python.org>
Signed-off-by: Christian Heimes christian@python.org
https://bugs.python.org/issue1635741
Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:tiran