Eric Cousineau added the comment:
> I get an error with 3.8.10, but not on the main branch (3.11) [...]
Confirmed, using 3.11.0a1 (using Docker). Seems like at least the pickling is
fixed?
> I'm confused -- your initial report talks about pickling fields, but your
> tests are
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
Thinking on it some more, I the current `Enum` metaclass doesn't distinguish
between nested class and normal field, so it wraps it, thus why `pickle` gets
confused.
Perhaps it's possible to recognize this case - the class w/ `__qualname__` can
be checked
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
Ah, forgot to include error message:
```
E
...
_pickle.PicklingError: Can't pickle : it's not the same object as
__main__.DoesNotWork.NestedValue2
```
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45
New submission from Eric Cousineau :
I seem cannot pickle enum values from an enum class w/ a nested frozen
dataclass.
I can pickle a field from a normal class w/ a nested frozen dataclass, and I
can pickle a field from an enum with a top-level frozen dataclass - perhaps
it's some interplay
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
Aye. Using a workaround for now ("leak" the object by incrementing the refcount
on first resurrection):
https://github.com/RobotLocomotion/pybind11/pull/39
I may try Antoine's suggestion later on, but will definitely reformulate this
to use the
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
Er, to clarify: "PEP 442 had that effect" => "PEP 442 had the effect of making
it resurrectable only once, but not more than that."
--
___
Python tracker
<https://
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
> [...] but I am not sure it makes sense to allow to mark an object as
> finalized because that could mess with the GC algorithm.
Actually, I would like the opposite, to mark it unfinalized to resurrect the
object more than once. PEP 442 from a way
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
C functions sound great!
I am certainly not wed to the macros (nor do I love them), as I do not have
intense performance requirements where inlining (and spilling implementation
guts) is necessary.
--
___
Python
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
See also bpo-40240: "Expose public spelling of _PyGC_FINALIZED and
_PyGC_SET_FINALIZED?"
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
New submission from Eric Cousineau :
Motivated by this downstream project issue that I am working on:
https://github.com/RobotLocomotion/drake/issues/13026
In https://bugs.python.org/issue32377, I encountered PEP 442's updated
resurrection behavior when moving from supporting Python 2
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
Super late response, but for this part:
> Well... perhaps you could create another PyObject (it's just a wrapper,
> right?) since the old one doesn't have any outside references to it
> remaining.
In certain cases, yes, that would be the case.
Eric Cousineau <eric.cousineau@tri.global> added the comment:
> P.S. This issue points out once again why it is generally a bad idea to
> shadow or mix-and-match standard library module names.
Duly noted! And thank y'all for the explanations!
Can I ask if it's bad practice to us
New submission from Eric Cousineau <eric.cousineau@tri.global>:
We ran into an issue with our library; we build a submodule named `math.so`,
and have a test `math_test` which is ran in the same directory as this module
(since this is how we've written it with Bazel's generated Python bi
Eric Cousineau <eric.cousineau@tri.global> added the comment:
You're welcome, and thank you for the prompt response!
I will say that it feels a tad odd to only have `tp_finalize` be called once
for the entire lifetime of the object, while still having the option of it
being resur
New submission from Eric Cousineau <eric.cousineau@tri.global>:
Due to how `PyObject_CallFinalizer` is written in python3, `__del__` will only
*ever* be called once.
In my use case, I am experimenting with a feature in `pybind11` to prevent
slicing with Python class instances that i
New submission from Eric Cousineau:
[Copying post I made here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12082886/bug-in-python-regex-re-sub-with-re-multiline]
I'm noticing some odd behavior in Python's Regex library, and I'm not sure if
I'm doing something wrong.
If I run a regex on it using
Eric Cousineau added the comment:
Looks like I was just writing my code incorrectly - I should have been using
re.sub(..., flags = re.MULTILINE).
That explains it.
--
resolution: - invalid
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep
17 matches
Mail list logo
