Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

gh-135755: Document the new PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS macro #135934

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

gh-135755: Document the new PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS macro #135934

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6d4ad50
Document PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS
ZeroIntensity Jun 25, 2025
58f7229
Add some clarification.
ZeroIntensity Jun 25, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions Doc/c-api/function.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -142,6 +142,16 @@ There are a few functions specific to Python functions.
do not do type checking. Passing anything other than an instance of
:c:data:`PyFunction_Type` is undefined behavior.

.. c:function:: PyObject *PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS(PyObject *op)

Return the dictionary used to look up builtins (which might be ``NULL``)
when calling function *op*.

This function cannot fail and does not do error checking; passing anything
other than an instance of :c:data:`PyFunction_Type` is undefined behavior.
There is no ``PyFunction_Get*`` equivalent for this function.
Comment on lines +150 to +152
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm, I don't think C API WG would approve.
Should this function be in a private header (and with an underscore) instead? It looks untested as well.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's sort of tested. I'm not opposed to making it private.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That looks like it's used in a test -- the test assumes that it's working?
Yeah, the more I look into it, the better making it private seems.

cc @ericsnowcurrently, who added PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS in #133128

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll put up an alternate PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW, I agree with making it internal-only.


.. versionadded 3.14

.. c:function:: int PyFunction_AddWatcher(PyFunction_WatchCallback callback)

Expand Down
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions Doc/data/refcounts.dat
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -966,6 +966,9 @@ PyFunction_GetAnnotations:PyObject*:op:0:
PyFunction_GET_ANNOTATIONS:PyObject*::0:
PyFunction_GET_ANNOTATIONS:PyObject*:op:0:

PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS:PyObject*::0:
PyFunction_GET_BUILTINS:PyObject*:op:0:

PyFunction_GetClosure:PyObject*::0:
PyFunction_GetClosure:PyObject*:op:0:

Expand Down
Loading