On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/5/5 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>: >> Seems you're in agreement with this. IMO when references are borrowed >> it is not very interesting. The interesting thing is when calling a >> function *steals* a reference. The other important thing to know is >> whether the caller ends up owning the return value (if it is an >> object) or not. I *think* you can tell the latter from the +1 for the >> return value; but the former (whether it steals a reference) is >> unclear from the data given. There's even an XXX comment about this in >> the file: >> >> # XXX NOTE: the 0/+1/-1 refcount information for arguments is >> # confusing! Much more useful would be to indicate whether the >> # function "steals" a reference to the argument or not. Take for >> # example PyList_SetItem(list, i, item). This lists as a 0 change for >> # both the list and the item arguments. However, in fact it steals a >> # reference to the item argument! > > Should we change this file then? > And only list functions that don't follow the usual conventions. > > But I'm sure that there are external tools which already use refcounts.dat > in its present format.
Maybe we can *add* a column with the desired information? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
