[issue36995] tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset

Jeroen Demeyer added the comment: I see what you mean now. One bpo issue with many pull requests. I was following the CPython policy that every pull request needed an issue, but it didn't occur to me to put multiple independent PRs on one issue. -- resolution: -> duplicate stage:

[issue36995] tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I would suggest centralizing all PRs on the same issue as Petr is indicating to reduce the noise, especially before the PEP is accepted. -- nosy: +pablogsal ___ Python tracker

[issue36995] tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset

Change by Jeroen Demeyer : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +13375 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue36995] tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset

Petr Viktorin added the comment: All these issues are quite confusing. If PEP 590 is accepted, all of it will need to be implemented. Why open separate issues for all the parts? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue36995] tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset

New submission from Jeroen Demeyer : If PEP 590 is accepted: in code comments, replace tp_print by tp_vectorcall_offset and (while we're at it) tp_reserved by tp_as_async. -- components: Interpreter Core messages: 343061 nosy: Mark.Shannon, jdemeyer, petr.viktorin priority: normal