[issue6128] Consequences of using Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC are incompletely explained

2014-02-03 Thread Mark Lawrence
Changes by Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk: -- nosy: -BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue6128 ___ ___

[issue6128] Consequences of using Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC are incompletely explained

2014-01-16 Thread Christian Aichinger
Christian Aichinger added the comment: I concur that this aspect of writing Python types in C/C++ needs better documentation. For a new extension writer (like me), it is not obvious when PyObject_GC_Track/PyObject_GC_UnTrack must be called or not. Similarly, it is not clear from the current

[issue6128] Consequences of using Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC are incompletely explained

2013-07-05 Thread Christian Heimes
Christian Heimes added the comment: Python's extension modules aren't consistent. Some places deallocate the object with PyObject_Del(), other places are using PyObject_GC_Del() or simple Py_DECREF(). -- nosy: +christian.heimes priority: normal - low stage: - needs patch type: -

[issue6128] Consequences of using Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC are incompletely explained

2010-08-01 Thread Mark Lawrence
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment: Can someone in the know provide a doc patch for this? -- assignee: georg.brandl - d...@python nosy: +BreamoreBoy, d...@python ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org

[issue6128] Consequences of using Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC are incompletely explained

2009-05-27 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
New submission from Jean-Paul Calderone exar...@divmod.com: Creation of GC'd types is explained at http://docs.python.org/c-api/gcsupport.html. The docs claim that PyObject_GC_Track must be called once an object created with PyObject_GC_New is initialized. The docs fail to explain what should