On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 07:35:59PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I just want to point out that the C API documentation is pretty > > silent about the refcounting side-effects in error conditions (and > > often in success conditions too) of most Python functions. For > > example, what is the refcounting side-effects of PyDict_SetItem() on > > val? What about if that function fails? Has val been incref'd or > > not? What about the side-effects on any value the new one replaces, > > both in success and failure? > > The usual principle is that the refcounting behaviour > is (or should be) independent of whether the function > succeeded or failed. In the absence of any statement > to the contrary in the docs, you should be able to > assume that. > > The words used to describe the refcount behaviour of > some functions can be rather confusing, but it always > boils down to one of two cases: either the function > "borrows" a reference (and does its own incref if > needed, the caller doesn't need to care) or it "steals" > a reference (so the caller is always responsible for > doing an incref if needed before calling). > > What that rather convoluted comment about PyTuple_SetItem > is trying to say is just that it *always* steals a reference, > regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. I expect the > same is true of Py_BuildValue.
Given that it doesn't seem to be the case, and my quick look at the code indicates that even internally python is inconsistent, should I file a low-severity bug so we don't lose track of this? Misa _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
