Re: [RFA 07/13] Remove unused declaration from py-prettyprint.c

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 07/14/2018 01:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> writes:
> 
> Simon> Also LGTM.  However, since both extension languages call value_contents_for_printing
> Simon> (from what I understand, to ensure the value has been fetched/is not lazy) and bail
> Simon> if some bytes are unavailable, perhaps apply_ext_lang_val_pretty_printer should
> Simon> do it instead.
> 
> It seems possible that someday we'd want to expose unavailable bytes via
> the Python Value API.

Right, but that's not an issue if we morph the call to a direct
value_fetch_lazy call instead, AFAICS.

> 
> Simon> Also, doing
> 
> Simon>   if (value->lazy)
> Simon>     value_fetch_lazy (value);
> 
> Simon> would communicate better the intent than calling value_contents_for_printing for the
> Simon> same side-effect.

Right, what I was saying too in the guile patch.

> 
> True, but then this is exposed to other possible changes in the value API.

I don't see how using value_contents_for_printing instead helps with that?
 
Thanks,
Pedro Alves