On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 02:08, Cameron Laird wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . > . > . > > IMO the reference behaviour of functions in the C API could be > >clearer. [snip] . > . > . > This is a sensitive area for me, too. I'd welcome insight > on how to think about this. If Pythonia were a better place > in this regard, how would it be? Reference documents that > more transparently define reference behavior?
I think the current documentation does a fairly good job of that when describing how to treat the return values of the various functions, but a much poorer one when covering their arguments. > A convention for API names that reveals reference characteristics? That is what I'd lean towards personally... but of course there's duplication and compatibility to be considered. -- Craig Ringer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
