Python-Dev August 1999

python-dev@python.org

18 participants
35 discussions

Portable "spawn" module for core?
by Greg Ward 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

Hi all -- it recently occured to me that the 'spawn' module I wrote for the Distutils (and which Perry Stoll extended to handle NT), could fit nicely in the core library. On Unix, it's just a front-end to fork-and-exec; on NT, it's a front-end to spawnv(). In either case, it's just enough code (and just tricky enough code) that not everybody should have to duplicate it for their own uses. The basic idea is this: from spawn import spawn ... spawn (['cmd', 'arg1', 'arg2']) # or spawn (['cmd'] + args) you get the idea: it takes a *list* representing the command to spawn: no strings to parse, no shells to get in the way, no sneaky meta-characters ruining your day, draining your efficiency, or compromising your security. (Conversely, no pipelines, redirection, etc.) The 'spawn()' function just calls '_spawn_posix()' or '_spawn_nt()' depending on os.name. Additionally, it takes a couple of optional keyword arguments (all booleans): 'search_path', 'verbose', and 'dry_run', which do pretty much what you'd expect. The module as it's currently in the Distutils code is attached. Let me know what you think... Greg -- Greg Ward - software developer gward(a)cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990 Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913

5 7

Re: [Python-Dev] Portable "spawn" module for core?
by Jack Jansen 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

Hmm, if we're talking a "Python Make" or some such here the best way would probably be to use Tool Server. Tool Server is a thing that is based on Apple's old MPW programming environment, that is still supported by compiler vendors like MetroWerks. The nice thing of Tool Server for this type of work is that it _is_ command-line based, so you can probably send it things like spawn("cc", "-O", "test.c") But, although I know it is possible to do this with ToolServer, I haven't a clue on how to do it... -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen(a)oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] Portable "spawn" module for core?
by Jack Jansen 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

Recently, Greg Ward <gward(a)cnri.reston.va.us> said: > BTW, is there anything like this on the Mac? On what other OSs does it > even make sense to talk about programs spawning other programs? (Surely > those GUI user interfaces have to do *something*...) Yes, but the interface is quite a bit more high-level, so it's pretty difficult to reconcile with the Unix and Windows "every argument is a string" paradigm. You start the process and pass along an AppleEvent (basically an RPC-call) that will be presented to the program upon startup. So on the mac there's a serious difference between (inventing the API interface here, cut down to make it understandable to non-macheads:-) spawn("netscape", ("Open", "file.html")) and spawn("netscape", ("OpenURL", "http://foo.com/file.html")) The mac interface is (of course:-) infinitely more powerful, allowing you to talk to running apps, adressing stuff in it as COM/OLE does, etc. but unfortunately the simple case of spawn("rm", "-rf", "/") is impossible to represent in a meaningful way. Add to that the fact that there's no stdin/stdout/stderr and there's little common ground. The one area of common ground is "run program X on files Y and Z and wait (or don't wait) for completion", so that is something that could maybe have a special method that could be implemented on all three mentioned platforms (and probably everything else as well). And even then it'll be surprising to Mac users that they have to _exit_ their editor (if you specify wait), not something people commonly do. -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen(a)oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm

3 2

Iterating over dictionaries and objects in general
by M.-A. Lemburg 28 Aug '99

28 Aug '99

[Followup to a discussion on psa-members about iterating over dictionaries without creating intermediate lists] Jim Fulton wrote: > > "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > > > > Jim Fulton wrote: > > > > > > > The problem with the PyDict_Next() approach is that it will only > > > > work reliably from within a single C call. You can't return > > > > to Python between calls to PyDict_Next(), because those could > > > > modify the dictionary causing the next PyDict_Next() call to > > > > fail or core dump. > > > > > > I do this all the time without problem. Basically, you provide an > > > index and if the index is out of range, you simply get an end-of-data return. > > > The only downside of this approach is that you might get "incorrect" > > > results if the dictionary is modified between calls. This isn't > > > all that different from iterating over a list with an index. > > > > Hmm, that's true... but what if the dictionary gets resized > > in between iterations ? The item layout is then likely to > > change, so you could potentially get complet bogus. > > I think I said that. :) Just wanted to verify my understanding ;-) > > Even iterating over items twice may then occur, I guess. > > Yup. > > Again, this is not so different from iterating over > a list using a range: > > l=range(10) > for i in range.len(l): > l.insert(0,'Bruce') > print l[i] > > This always outputs 'Bruce'. :) Ok, so the "risk" is under user control. Fine with me... > > Or perhaps via a special dictionary iterator, so that the following > > works: > > > > for item in dictrange(d): > > ... > > Yup. > > > The iterator could then also take some extra actions to insure > > that the dictionary hasn't been resized. > > I don't think it should do that. It should simply > stop when it has run out of items. I think I'll give such an iterator a spin. Would be a nice extension to mxTools. BTW, a generic type slot for iterating over types would probably be a nice feature too. The type slot could provide hooks of the form it_first, it_last, it_next, it_prev which all work integer index based, e.g. in pseudo code: int i; PyObject *item; /* set up i and item to point to the first item */ if (obj.it_first(&i,&item) < 0) goto onError; while (1) { PyObject_Print(item); /* move i and item to the next item; an IndexError is raised in case there are no more items */ if (obj.it_next(&i,&item) < 0) { PyErr_Clear(); break; } } These slots would cover all problem instances where iteration over non-sequences or non-uniform sequences (i.e. sequences like objects which don't provide konvex index sets, e.g. 1,2,3,6,7,8,11,12) is required, e.g. dictionaries, multi-segment buffers -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 127 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/

1 0

about line numbers
by Vladimir Marangozov 25 Aug '99

25 Aug '99

[Tim, in an earlier msg] > > Would be more valuable to rethink the debugger's breakpoint approach so that > SET_LINENO is never needed (line-triggered callbacks are expensive because > called so frequently, turning each dynamic SET_LINENO into a full-blown > Python call; Ok. In the meantime I think that folding the redundant SET_LINENO doesn't hurt. I ended up with a patchlet that seems to have no side effects, that updates the lnotab as it should and that even makes pdb a bit more clever, IMHO. Consider an extreme case for the function f (listed below). Currently, we get the following: ------------------------------------------- >>> from test import f >>> import dis, pdb >>> dis.dis(f) 0 SET_LINENO 1 3 SET_LINENO 2 6 SET_LINENO 3 9 SET_LINENO 4 12 SET_LINENO 5 15 LOAD_CONST 1 (1) 18 STORE_FAST 0 (a) 21 SET_LINENO 6 24 SET_LINENO 7 27 SET_LINENO 8 30 LOAD_CONST 2 (None) 33 RETURN_VALUE >>> pdb.runcall(f) > test.py(1)f() -> def f(): (Pdb) list 1, 20 1 -> def f(): 2 """Comment about f""" 3 """Another one""" 4 """A third one""" 5 a = 1 6 """Forth""" 7 "and pdb can set a breakpoint on this one (simple quotes)" 8 """but it's intelligent about triple quotes...""" [EOF] (Pdb) step > test.py(2)f() -> """Comment about f""" (Pdb) step > test.py(3)f() -> """Another one""" (Pdb) step > test.py(4)f() -> """A third one""" (Pdb) step > test.py(5)f() -> a = 1 (Pdb) step > test.py(6)f() -> """Forth""" (Pdb) step > test.py(7)f() -> "and pdb can set a breakpoint on this one (simple quotes)" (Pdb) step > test.py(8)f() -> """but it's intelligent about triple quotes...""" (Pdb) step --Return-- > test.py(8)f()->None -> """but it's intelligent about triple quotes...""" (Pdb) >>> ------------------------------------------- With folded SET_LINENO, we have this: ------------------------------------------- >>> from test import f >>> import dis, pdb >>> dis.dis(f) 0 SET_LINENO 5 3 LOAD_CONST 1 (1) 6 STORE_FAST 0 (a) 9 SET_LINENO 8 12 LOAD_CONST 2 (None) 15 RETURN_VALUE >>> pdb.runcall(f) > test.py(5)f() -> a = 1 (Pdb) list 1, 20 1 def f(): 2 """Comment about f""" 3 """Another one""" 4 """A third one""" 5 -> a = 1 6 """Forth""" 7 "and pdb can set a breakpoint on this one (simple quotes)" 8 """but it's intelligent about triple quotes...""" [EOF] (Pdb) break 7 Breakpoint 1 at test.py:7 (Pdb) break 8 *** Blank or comment (Pdb) step > test.py(8)f() -> """but it's intelligent about triple quotes...""" (Pdb) step --Return-- > test.py(8)f()->None -> """but it's intelligent about triple quotes...""" (Pdb) >>> ------------------------------------------- i.e, pdb stops at (points to) the first real instruction and doesn't step trough the doc strings. Or is there something I'm missing here? -- Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov(a)inrialpes.fr http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252 -------------------------------[ cut here ]--------------------------- *** compile.c-orig Thu Aug 19 19:27:13 1999 --- compile.c Thu Aug 19 19:00:31 1999 *************** *** 615,620 **** --- 615,623 ---- int arg; { if (op == SET_LINENO) { + if (!Py_OptimizeFlag && c->c_last_addr == c->c_nexti - 3) + /* Hack for folding several SET_LINENO in a row. */ + c->c_nexti -= 3; com_set_lineno(c, arg); if (Py_OptimizeFlag) return;

3 11

Portable and OS-dependent module idea/proposal/brain fart
by Skip Montanaro 25 Aug '99

25 Aug '99

I posted a note to the main list yesterday in response to Dan Connolly's complaint that the os module isn't very portable. I saw no followups (it's amazing how fast a thread can die out :-), but I think it's a reasonable idea, perhaps for Python 2.0, so I'll repeat it here to get some feedback from people more interesting in long-term Python developments. The basic premise is that for each platform on which Python runs there are portable and nonportable interfaces to the underlying operating system. The term POSIX has some portability connotations, so let's assume that the posix module exposes the portable subset of the OS interface. To keep things simple, let's also assume there are only three supported general OS platforms: unix, nt and mac. The proposal then is that importing the platform's module by name will import both the portable and non-portable interface elements. Importing the posix module will import just that portion of the interface that is truly portable across all platforms. To add new functionality to the posix interface it would have to be added to all three platforms. The posix module will be able to ferret out the platform it is running on and import the correct OS-independent posix implementation: import sys _plat = sys.platform del sys if _plat == "mac": from posixmac import * elif _plat == "nt": from posixnt import * else: from posixunix import * # some unix variant The platform-dependent module would simply import everything it could, e.g.: from posixunix import * from nonposixunix import * The os module would vanish or be deprecated with its current behavior intact. The documentation would be modified so that the posix module documents the portable interface and the OS-dependent module's documentation documents the rest and just refers users to the posix module docs for the portable stuff. In theory, this could be done for 1.6, however as I've proposed it, the semantics of importing the posix module would change. Dan Connolly probably isn't going to have a problem with that, though I suppose Guido might... If this idea is good enough for 1.6, perhaps we leave os and posix module semantics alone and add a module named "portable", "portableos" or "portableposix" or something equally arcane. Skip Montanaro | http://www.mojam.com/ skip(a)mojam.com | http://www.musi-cal.com/~skip/ 847-971-7098

6 19

Re: [Python-Dev] Portable and OS-dependent module idea/proposal/brain fart
by Jack Jansen 25 Aug '99

25 Aug '99

But in Python, with its nice high-level datastructures, couldn't we design the Mother Of All File Attribute Calls, which would optionally map functionality from one platform to another? As an example consider the Mac resource fork size. If on unix I did fattrs = os.getfileattributes(filename) rfsize = fattrs.get('resourceforksize') it would raise an exception. If, however, I did rfsize = fattrs.get('resourceforksize', compat=1) I would get a "close approximation", 0. Note that you want some sort of a compat parameter, not a default value, as for some attributes (the various atime/mtime/ctimes, permission bits, etc) you'd get a default based on other file attributes that do exist on the current platform. Hmm, the file-attribute-object idea has the added advantage that you can then use setfileattributes(filename, fattrs) to be sure that you've copied all relevant attributes, independent of the platform you're on. Mapping permissions takes a bit more (design-) work, with unix having user/group/other only and Windows having full-fledged ACLs (or nothing at all, depending how you look at it:-), but should also be doable. -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen(a)oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm

1 0

Converting C objects to Python objects and back
by Jack Jansen 22 Aug '99

22 Aug '99

Here's another siy idea, not having to do with optimization. On the Mac, and as far as I know on Windows as well, there are quite a few OS API structures that have a Python Object representation that is little more than the PyObject boilerplate plus a pointer to the C API object. (And, of course, lots of methods to operate on the object). To convert these from Python to C I always use boilerplate code like WindowPtr *win; PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "O&", PyWin_Convert, &win); where PyWin_Convert is the function that takes a PyObject * and a void **, does the typecheck and sets the pointer. A similar way is used to convert C pointers back to Python objects in Py_BuildValue. What I was thinking is that it would be nice (if you are _very_ careful) if this functionality was available in struct. So, if I would somehow obtain (in a Python string) a C structure that contained, say, a WindowPtr and two ints, I would be able to say win, x, y = struct.unpack("Ohh", Win.WindowType) and struct would be able, through the WindowType type object, to get at the PyWin_Convert and PyWin_New functions. A nice side issue is that you can add an option to PyArg_Parsetuple so you can say PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "O+", Win_WinObject, &win) and you don't have to remember the different names the various types use for their conversion routines. Is this worth pursuing is is it just too dangerous? And, if it is worth pursuing, I have to stash away the two function pointers somewhere in the TypeObject, should I grab one of the tp_xxx fields for this or is there a better place? -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen(a)oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm

1 0

about line numbers
by Vladimir Marangozov 22 Aug '99

22 Aug '99

Just curious: Is python with vs. without "-O" equivalent today regarding line numbers? Are SET_LINENO opcodes a plus in some situations or not? Next, I see quite often several SET_LINENO in a row in the beginning of code objects due to doc strings, etc. Since I don't think that folding them into one SET_LINENO would be an optimisation (it would rather be avoiding the redundancy), is it possible and/or reasonable to do something in this direction? A trivial example: >>> def f(): ... "This is a comment about f" ... a = 1 ... >>> import dis >>> dis.dis(f) 0 SET_LINENO 1 3 SET_LINENO 2 6 SET_LINENO 3 9 LOAD_CONST 1 (1) 12 STORE_FAST 0 (a) 15 LOAD_CONST 2 (None) 18 RETURN_VALUE >>> Can the above become something like this instead: 0 SET_LINENO 3 3 LOAD_CONST 1 (1) 6 STORE_FAST 0 (a) 9 LOAD_CONST 2 (None) 12 RETURN_VALUE -- Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov(a)inrialpes.fr http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252

2 6

Re: [Python-Dev] Quick-and-dirty weak references
by Jack Jansen 20 Aug '99

20 Aug '99

The one thing I'm not thrilled by in mxProxy is that a call to CheckWeakReferences() is needed before an object is cleaned up. I guess this boils down to the same problem I had with my weak reference scheme: you somehow want the Python core to tell the proxy stuff that the object can be cleaned up (although the details are different: in my scheme this would be triggered by refcount==0 and in mxProxy by refcount==1). And because objects are created and destroyed in Python at a tremendous rate you don't want to do this call for every object, only if you have a hint that the object has a weak reference (or a proxy). -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen(a)oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm

4 4

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

Python-Dev August 1999