Larry Hastings added the comment: I disagree that the Clinic DSL is "verbose". Certainly I find it more succinct than what we do now.
On the other hand, the syntax you proposed in the python-dev message you cite is insufficient to the task. Consider a function that takes a "char *". How might you want Python to convert the Python value into that char *? Should it only accept bytes? Should it accept bytes and Unicode? Should it accept objects exposing the buffer protocol? Do you want the length too? If you want the length, does that mean that you accept nulls inside the string? If it's Unicode, do you want to use a default encoding, or do you want to specify an encoding? Or do you want to specify your own conversion function? My solution for the above is to add "flags". Which is, semantically, the only important distinction between what you propose and Clinic's DSL. (That and the per-argument docstrings, which I already suggest are negotiable.) The remaining differences are that you want to cram everything onto one line, wheras Clinic's DSL spreads things over multiple lines. I suggest the latter is more readable, particularly when the number of arguments grows large. To answer 5), you're the only C contributor who comes to mind who seems unhappy. Do I understand you correctly that your main pain point is that you generate scores of identical functions with the C preprocessor, and you see no way to do that with Clinic? If we figured out a way to make that work with Clinic, would that reduce your concerns? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16612> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
