On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 4:44 PM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] > A cloning-with-replacement API that accepted the base code object and the > "safe to modify" fields could be a good complement to the API deprecation > proposal. > Yes (I forgot to mention that). > Moving actual "from scratch" code object creation behind the Py_BUILD_CORE > guard with an underscore prefix on the name would also make sense, since it > defines a key piece of the compiler/interpreter boundary. > Yeah, we have _PyCode_New() for that. > Cheers, > Nick. > > P.S. Noting an idea that won't work, in case anyone else reading the > thread was thinking the same thing: a "PyType_FromSpec" style API won't > help here, as the issue is that the compiler is now doing more work up > front and recording that extra info in the code object for the interpreter > to use. There is no way to synthesise that info if it isn't passed to the > constructor, as it isn't intrinsically recorded in the opcode sequence. > That's the API style that _PyCode_New() uses (thanks to Eric who IIRC pushed for this and implemented it). You gave me an idea now: the C equivalent to .replace() could use the same input structure; one can leave fields NULL that should be copied from the original unmodified. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/NWYMCDAMS4YRJ7ESXNWQ6MIBSRAZEXEM/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
