enlightenment/python-efl
enlightenment
/
python-efl
6
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add discussion items to CODING.

This commit is contained in:
Kai Huuhko 2013-03-30 22:22:33 +00:00
parent 28d68cf2a0
commit 70e0ef0be8
1 changed files with 41 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

46
CODING
View File

@ -5,11 +5,7 @@ Style
* For indentation, use *four space characters* per level of indentation.
* When comparing C pointers, use == and != instead of the python operator "is".
This makes a visual distinction between C and py code and don't confuse the
reader as "==" and "is" has different meaning in python.
* Internal utility functions used in the bindings must start with an
underscore and must have the shortest name as possible.
This makes a visual distinction.
Design patterns
===============
@ -47,3 +43,43 @@ Ideas
=====
* Use a decorator for _METHOD_DEPRECATED
Discussion
==========
* When comparing C pointers, use == and != instead of the python operator "is".
This makes a visual distinction between C and py code and don't confuse the
reader as "==" and "is" has different meaning in python.
^
This last clarification is not true. We're actually comparing whether two
references are the same (pointer comparison) which is what the operator
"is" does in Python, not whether their value is the same, which is what
"==" does in Python.
This is a direct quote from Cython developer Stefan Behnel:
"If a user wants pointer comparison, "is" is the most explicit operator
w.r.t. Python semantics."
I don't mind if it's "==" for visual difference, but confusing everyone
by first telling them the operators' meaning in Python and then using them
in reverse is absolutely not acceptable.
/ kuuko
* Internal utility functions used in the bindings must start with an
underscore and must have the shortest name as possible.
^
This needs further discussion/expansion.
When we define a function with cdef it is not exposed to Python API.
This should be explicit enough to not need the underscore prefix, which
at best looks ugly, and at worst just plain confusing.
A function name should summarize its functionality in one clear text,
short sentence. We have both too long and too short names. And I admit to
being guilty of adding many of both.
Let's build up a short review so we can see where we stand with this and
make necessary corrections.
/ kuuko