On 04. 02. 22 15:23, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Petr Viktorin schrieb am 03.02.22 um 13:47:
On 02. 02. 22 11:50, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Maybe we should advertise the two modes more. And make sure that both
work. There are certainly issues with the current state of the
"limited API" implementation, but that just needs work and testing.
I wonder if it can it be renamed? "Limited API" has a specific meaning
since PEP 384, and using it for the public API is adding to the
general confusion in this area :(
I was more referring to it as an *existing* compilation mode of Cython
that avoids the usage of CPython implementation details. The fact that
the implementation is incomplete just means that we spill over into
non-limited API code when no limited API is available for a certain
feature. That will usually be public API code, unless that is really not
available either.
One recent example is the new error locations in tracebacks, where PEP
657 explicitly lists the new "co_positions" field in code objects as an
implementation detail of CPython. If we want to implement this in
Cython, then there is no other way than to copy these implementation
details pretty verbatimly from CPython and to depend on them.
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0657/
In this specific case, we're lucky that this can be considered an
entirely optional feature that we can separately disable when users
request "public API" mode (let's call it that). Not sure if that's what
users want, though.
Should there be a getter/setter for co_positions?
I'm unfortunately not aware of what Cython needs from code objects, but
it might be good to extend the API here.
_______________________________________________
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/XK4DMU7I35TKXYJRYQE4RGMLNNBPDTYN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
