STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment:
> I'd also prefer a Py_IsNotNone() because it's more explicit than !Py_IsNone() I would prefer keep the C API small. I don't think that we need to duplicate all functions testing for something. We provide PyTuple_Check(obj) but we don't provide PyTuple_NotCheck(obj) for example. IMO !Py_IsNone(obj) makes perfectly sense in Python. Also, "x == Py_None" is more common than "x != Py_None". ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43753> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
