fixed fail on processing headers with substring 'type' in their names #218
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 2 commits
April 7, 2014 13:11
|
This seems to be dependent on #219. |
| @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ def touch(filename): | |||
| def isvardesc(desc): | |||
| """Tests if a description is a variable-type description.""" | |||
| return desc is not None and 'type' in desc and 'signatures' not in desc and \ | |||
| 'methods' not in desc | |||
| 'methods' not in desc and not isinstance(desc, str) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should use basestring here instead of str. (In Python3, basestring is defined to be str.)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @scopatz. We are using xdress to create python bindings for sdk written in 'c' and faced with issue when xdress fails on processing 'c' headers with 'type' in their names (e.g. we have types.h in our sdk). In such case module description is considered as variable description. I added additional verification for it, but not sure that it's right solution.