On 11/26/2018 7:08 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 11/23/18 5:15 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
Also FWIW, my own 2 cents on the topic of changing the C API: let's
entirely drop ``PyObject *`` and instead use more opaque
handles---like a ``PyHandle`` that is defined as a pointer-sized C
type but is not actually directly a pointer. The main difference this
would make is that the user of the API cannot dereference anything
from the opaque handle, nor directly compare handles with each other
to learn about object identity. They would work exactly like Windows
handles or POSIX file descriptors.
Why would this be better than simply returning the pointer? Sure, it
prevents ever dereferencing the pointer and messing with the object, it
is true. So naughty people would be prevented from messing with the
object directly instead of using the API as they should. But my
understanding is that the implementation would be slightly
slower--there'd be all that looking up objects based on handles, and
managing the handle namespace too. I'm not convinced the nice-to-have
of "you can't dereference the pointer anymore" is worth this runtime
overhead.
Or maybe you have something pretty cheap in mind, e.g. "handle = pointer
^ 49"? Or even "handle = pointer ^ (random odd number picked at
startup)" to punish the extra-naughty?
I thought the important part of the proposal was to have multiple
PyHandles that point to the same PyObject (you couldn't "directly
compare handles with each other to learn about object identity"). But
I'll admit I'm not sure why this would be a win. Then of course they
couldn't be regular pointers.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
