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

Skip to content

bpo-26515: Update C API docs to use PyModuleDef_Init() #8682

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

bpo-26515: Update C API docs to use PyModuleDef_Init() #8682

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member

@berkerpeksag berkerpeksag commented Aug 6, 2018 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting merge labels Aug 6, 2018
@brettcannon brettcannon requested a review from encukou August 10, 2018 19:01
ncoghlan
ncoghlan reviewed Aug 22, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ncoghlan ncoghlan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks like a nice improvement to me. There's a forward reference that I don't think is quite right any more, and one small syntactic tweak needed to fix the build.

Doc/extending/extending.rst
}

then we need to specify the :c:func:`spam_exec` function for the
c:var:`Py_mod_exec` slot::
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Missing the leading : here (that appears to be what the CI error is complaining about)

Doc/extending/extending.rst
@@ -234,8 +244,8 @@ needed to ensure that it will not be discarded, causing :c:data:`SpamError` to
become a dangling pointer. Should it become a dangling pointer, C code which
raises the exception could cause a core dump or other unintended side effects.

We discuss the use of ``PyMODINIT_FUNC`` as a function return type later in this
sample.
We discuss the use of :c:macro:`PyMODINIT_FUNC` as a function return type later
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With the modified example, this macro hasn't actually been referenced yet. Instead, the forward reference needs to explain that this list of slots will then be added to a PyModuleDef struct defining the module as a whole, which is described later.

encukou
encukou requested changes Sep 12, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@encukou encukou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for getting to this so late -- I missed the review request notification.

Doc/extending/extending.rst
@@ -204,24 +204,34 @@ usually declare a static object variable at the beginning of your file::

static PyObject *SpamError;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a problem if the module is loaded more than once (for example, in multiple subinterpreters).
In that case, spam_exec would be executed multiple times, each time calling PyErr_NewException and setting SpamError to the newly created error object.

This pointer needs to be part of per-module state.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: I have made the requested changes; please review again.

And if you don't make the requested changes, you will be put in the comfy chair!

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

I removed the " needs backport to 3.6" label, the 3.6 branch no longer accept bugfixes (only security fixes are accepted): https://devguide.python.org/#status-of-python-branches

@csabella
Copy link
Contributor

@berkerpeksag It looks like this one was close to being merged. When you have a chance, please review the changes requested by @ncoghlan and @encukou. Thanks!

@brettcannon brettcannon removed their request for review March 1, 2019 20:43
@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

@berkerpeksag, ping

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

I'll update my branch this weekend. Sorry for my late response!

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Dec 29, 2020

More detailed discussion/insructions is in PEP 630.

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

@encukou so is this still needed or is PEP 630 the main reference point now?

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jan 12, 2021

Because of PEP 630's open issues, making PyModuleDef_Init the default way to make classes would be leading some users into a trap. I am still not comfortable making it a default in the docs, and I'd rather have users read PEP 630 and understand the benefits and tradeoffs.
Until the open issues are solved, of course.

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you. Closing this for now then.

@brettcannon brettcannon mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ncoghlan ncoghlan ncoghlan left review comments

@encukou encukou encukou requested changes

Assignees

@berkerpeksag berkerpeksag

Labels
awaiting changes docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@berkerpeksag @bedevere-bot @vstinner @csabella @JulienPalard @encukou @ncoghlan @the-knights-who-say-ni