It's time to discuss Argument Clinic again. I think the
implementation is ready for public scrutiny.
(It was actually ready a week ago, but I lost a couple of
days to "make distclean" corrupting my hg data store--yes,
I hadn't upped my local clinic branch in a while. Eventually
I gave up on repairing it and just brute-forcd it. Anyway...)
My Clinic test branch is here:
https://bitbucket.org/larry/python-clinic/
And before you ask, no, the above branch should never ever
ever be merged back into trunk. We'll start clean once Clinic
is ready for merging and do a nice neat job.
___________________________________________________________________
There's no documentation, apart from the PEP. But you can see
plenty of test cases of using Clinic, just grep for the string
"clinic" in */*.c. But for reference here's the list:
Modules/_cursesmodule.c
Modules/_datetimemodule.c
Modules/_dbmmodule.c
Modules/posixmodule.c
Modules/unicodedata.c
Modules/_weakref.c
Modules/zlibmodule.c
Objects/dictobject.c
Objects/unicodeobject.c
I haven't reimplemented every PyArg_ParseTuple "format unit"
in the retooled Clinic, so it's not ready to try with every
single builtin yet.
The syntax is as Guido dictated it during our meeting after
the Language Summit at PyCon US 2013. The implementation has
been retooled, several times, and is now both nicer and more
easily extensible. The internals are just a little messy,
but the external interfaces are all ready for critique.
___________________________________________________________________
Here are the external interfaces as I forsee them.
If you add your own data types, you'll subclass
"Converter" and maybe "ReturnConverter". Take a
look at the existing subclasses to get a feel for
what that's like.
If you implemented your own DSL, you'd make something
that quacked like "PythonParser" (implementing __init__
and parse methods), and you'd deal with "Block",
"Module", "Class", "Function", and "Parameter" objects
a lot.
What do you think?
___________________________________________________________________
What follows are six questions I'd like to put to the community,
ranked oddly enough in order of how little to how much I
care about the answer.
BTW, by convention, every time I need a arbitrary sample
function I use "os.stat".
(Please quote the question line in your responses,
otherwise I fear we'll get lost in the sea of text.)
___________________________________________________________________
Question 0: How should we integrate Clinic into the build process?
Clinic presents a catch-22: you want it as part of the build process,
but it needs Python to be built before it'll run. Currently it
requires Python 3.3 or newer; it might work in 3.2, I've never
tried it.
We can't depend on Python 3 being available when we build.
This complicates the build process somewhat. I imagine it's a
solvable problem on UNIX... with the right wizardry. I have no
idea how one'd approach it on Windows, but obviously we need to
solve the problem there too.
___________________________________________________________________
Question 1: Which C function nomenclature?
Argument Clinic generates two functions prototypes per Python
function: one specifying one of the traditional signatures for
builtins, whose code is generated completely by Clinic, and the
other with a custom-generated signature for just that call whose
code is written by the user.
Currently the former doesn't have any specific name, though I
have been thinking of it as the "parse" function. The latter
is definitely called the "impl" (pronounced IM-pull), short
for "implementation".
When Clinic generates the C code, it uses the name of the Python
function to create the C functions' names, with underscores in
place of dots. Currently the "parse" function gets the base name
("os_stat"), and the "impl" function gets an "_impl" added to the
end ("os_stat_impl").
Argument Clinic is agnostic about the names of these functions.
It's possible it'd be nicer to name these the other way around,
say "os_stat_parse" for the parse function and "os_stat" for the
impl.
Anyone have a strong opinion one way or the other? I don't much
care; all I can say is that the "obvious" way to do it when I
started was to add "_impl" to the impl, as it is the new creature
under the sun.
___________________________________________________________________
Question 2: Emit code for modules and classes?
Argument Clinic now understands the structure of the
modules and classes it works with. You declare them
like so:
module os
class os.ImaginaryClassHere
def os.ImaginaryClassHere.stat(...):
...
Currently it does very little with the information; right
now it mainly just gets baked into the documentation.
In the future I expect it to get used in the introspection
metadata, and it'll definitely be relevant to external
consumers of the Argument Clinic information (IDEs building
per-release databases, other implementations building
metadata for library interface conformance testing).
Another way we could use this metadata: have Argument
Clinic generate more of the boilerplate for a class
or module. For example, it could kick out all the
PyMethodDef structures for the class or module.
If we grew Argument Clinic some, and taught it about
the data members of classes and modules, it could
also generate the PyModuleDef and PyTypeObject structures,
and even generate a function that initialized them at
runtime for you. (Though that does seem like mission
creep to me.)
There are some complications to this, one of which I'll
discuss next. But I put it to you, gentle reader: how
much boilerplate should Argument Clinic undertake to
generate, and how much more class and module metadata
should be wired in to it?
___________________________________________________________________
Question 3: #ifdef support for functions?
Truth be told, I did experiment with having Argument
Clinic generate more of the boilerplate associated with
modules. Clinic already generates a macro per function
defining that function's PyMethodDef structure, for example:
#define OS_STAT_METHODDEF \
{"stat", (PyCFunction)os_stat, \
METH_VARARGS|METH_KEYWORDS, os_stat__doc__}
For a while I had it generating the PyMethodDef
structures, like so:
/*[clinic]
generate_method_defs os
[clinic]*/
#define OS_METHODDEFS \
OS_STAT_METHODDEF, \
OS_ACCESS_METHODDEF, \
OS_TTYNAME_METHODDEF, \
static PyMethodDef os_methods[] = {
OS_METHODDEFS
/* existing methoddefs here... */
NULL
}
But I ran into trouble with os.ttyname(), which is only
created and exposed if the platform defines HAVE_TTYNAME.
Initially I'd just thrown all the Clinic stuff relevant to
os.ttyname in the #ifdef block. But Clinic pays no attention
to #ifdef statements--so it would still add
OS_TTYNAME_METHODDEF,
to OS_METHODDEFS. And kablooey!
Right now I've backed out of this--I had enough to do without
getting off into extra credit like this. But I'd like to
return to it. It just seems natural to have Clinic generate
this nasty boilerplate.
Four approaches suggest themselves to me, listed below in order
of least- to most-preferable in my opinion:
0) Don't have Clinic participate in populating the PyMethodDefs.
1) Teach Clinic to understand simple C preprocessor statements,
just enough so it implicitly understands that os.ttyname was
defined inside an
#ifdef HAVE_TTYPE
block. It would then intelligently generate the code to take
this into account.
2) Explicitly tell Clinic that os.ttyname must have HAVE_TTYNAME
defined in order to be active. Clinic then generates the code
intelligently taking this into account, handwave handwave.
3) Change the per-function methoddef macro to have the trailing
comma:
#define OS_STAT_METHODDEF \
{"stat", (PyCFunction)os_stat, \
METH_VARARGS|METH_KEYWORDS, os_stat__doc__},
and suppress it in the macro Clinic generates:
/*[clinic]
generate_method_defs os
[clinic]*/
#define OS_METHODDEFS \
OS_STAT_METHODDEF \
OS_ACCESS_METHODDEF \
OS_TTYNAME_METHODDEF \
And then the code surrounding os.ttyname can look like this:
#ifdef HAVE_TTYNAME
// ... real os.ttyname stuff here
#else
#define OS_STAT_TTYNAME
#endif
And I think that would work great, actually. But I haven't
tried it.
Do you agree that Argument Clinic should generate this
information, and it should use the approach in 3) ?
___________________________________________________________________
Question 4: Return converters returning success/failure?
With the addition of the "return converter", we have the
lovely feature of being able to *return* a C type and have
it converted back into a Python type. Your C extensions
have never been more readable!
The problem is that the PyObject * returned by a C builtin
function serves two simultaneous purposes: it contains the
return value on success, but also it is NULL if the function
threw an exception. We can probably still do that for all
pointer-y return types (I'm not sure, I haven't played with
it yet). But if the impl function now returns "int", or some
decidedly other non-pointer-y type, there's no longer a magic
return value we can use to indicate "we threw an exception".
This isn't the end of the world; I can detect that the impl
threw an exception by calling PyErr_Occurred(). But I've been
chided before for calling this unnecessarily; it's ever-so
slightly expensive, in that it has to dereference TLS, and
does so with an atomic operation. Not to mention that it's
a function call!
The impl should know whether or not it failed. So it's the
interface we're defining that forces it to throw away that
information. If we provided a way for it to return that
information, we could shave off some cycles. The problem
is, how do we do that in a way that doesn't suck?
Four approaches suggest themselves to me, and sadly
I think they all suck to one degree or another. In
order of sucking least to most:
0) Return the real type and detect the exception with
PyErr_Occurred(). This is by far the loveliest option,
but it incurs runtime overhead.
1) Have the impl take an extra parameter, "int *failed".
If the function fails, it sets that to a true value and
returns whatever.
2) Have the impl return its calculated return value through
an extra pointer-y parameter ("int *return_value"), and
its actual return value is an int indicating success or
failure.
3) Have the impl return a structure containing both the
real return value and a success/failure integer. Then
its return lines would look like this:
return {-1, 0};
or maybe
return {-3, PY_HORRIBLE_CLINIC_INTERFACE__SUCCESS};
Can we live with PyErr_Occurred() here?
___________________________________________________________________
Question 5: Keep too-magical class decorator Converter.wrap?
Converter is the base class for converter objects, the objects
that handle the details of converting a Python object into its
C equivalent. The signature for Converter.__init__ has become
complicated:
def __init__(self, name, function, default=unspecified,
*, doc_default=None, required=False)
"name" is the name of the function ("stat"), "function" is an
object representing the function for which this Converter is
handling an argument (duck-type compatible with
inspect.Signature), and default is the default (Python) value
if any. "doc_default" is a string that overrides repr(default)
in the documentation, handy if repr(default) is too ugly or
you just want to mislead the user. "required", if True
specifies that the parameter should be considered required,
even if it has a default value.
Complicating the matter further, converter subclasses may take
extra (keyword-only and optional) parameters to configure exotic
custom behavior. For example, the "Py_buffer" converter takes
"zeroes" and "nullable"; the "path_t" converter implemented
in posixmodule.c takes "allow_fd" and "nullable". This means
that converter subclasses have to define a laborious __init__,
including three parameters with defaults, then turn right around
and pass most of the parameters back into super().__init__.
This interface has changed several times during the development
of Clinic, and I got tired of fixing up all my existing prototypes
and super calls. So I made a class decorator that did it for me.
Shield your eyes from the sulferous dark wizardry of Converter.wrap:
@staticmethod
def wrap(cls):
class WrappedConverter(cls, Converter):
def __init__(self, name, function, default=unspecified,
*, doc_default=None, required=False, **kwargs):
super(cls, self).__init__(name, function, default,
doc_default=doc_default, required=required)
cls.__init__(self, **kwargs)
return functools.update_wrapper(WrappedConverter,
cls, updated=())
When you decorate your class with Converter.wrap, you only
define in your __init__ your custom arguments. All the
arguments Converter.__init__ cares about are taken care
of for you (aka hidden from you). As an example, here's
the relevant bits of path_t_converter from posixmodule.c:
@Converter.wrap
class path_t_converter(Converter):
def __init__(self, *, allow_fd=False, nullable=False):
...
So on the one hand I admit it's smelly. On the other hand it
hides a lot of stuff that the user needn't care about, and it
makes the code simpler and easier to read. And it means we can
change the required arguments for Converter.__init__ without
breaking any code (as I have already happily done once or twice).
I'd like to keep it in, and anoint it as the preferred way
of declaring Converter subclasses. Anybody else have a strong
opinion on this either way?
(I don't currently have an equivalent mechanism for return
converters--their interface is a lot simpler, and I just
haven't needed it so far.)
___________________________________________________________________
Well! That's quite enough for now.
//arry/
_______________________________________________
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
