Small inconsistency between string.split and "".split

[Alex Martelli]

Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote:

> aleaxit at yahoo.com (Alex Martelli) writes:
> 
> > Having ALL C-coded functions and methods that accept any argument
> > accept keyword-style arguments in particular would surely lead to a
> > more consistent language,
> 
> [...]
> 
> This whole area isn't particularly pretty.  In general it would be

Indeed, it isn't.

> better to expose more of an extension functions signature *outside*
> the function, for efficiency, introspection and even things like

...and consistency with the way Python-coded functions work.

> psyco.  METH_O, METH_NOARGS are a step in this direction -- but you
> can't pass a keyword argument to a METH_O function (not that one would
> want to, very often, but it's still a potential inconsistency).

Right; it could be remedied by letting a macro otherwise equivalent to
METH_O know about that one argument's name.


> I wonder what Pyrex does...

for:
def example(aa, bb):
    pass

it generates (name mangling apart, I'm demangling for legibility):

static PyObject* example(PyObject *self, PyObject *args, PyObject *kwds)
{
    PyObject *aa = 0;
    PyObject *bb = 0;
    static char *argnames[] = {"aa", "bb", 0};

    if(!PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args,kwds,"OO",argnames,&aa,&bb))
        return 0;

etc, etc, and METH_VARARGS|METH_KEYWORDS in the PyMethodDef array.  IOW,
nothing strange, and all correct, it seems to me.


Alex

    

> 
> My thoughts on this area, like many others, can probably be summarized
> as "I hate C".
> 
> Cheers,
> mwh