It has been a while since I posted a copy of PEP 1 to the mailing
lists and newsgroups. I've recently done some updating of a few
sections, so in the interest of gaining wider community participation
in the Python development process, I'm posting the latest revision of
PEP 1 here. A version of the PEP is always available on-line at
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
Enjoy,
-Barry
-------------------- snip snip --------------------
PEP: 1
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.36 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton
Status: Active
Type: Informational
Created: 13-Jun-2000
Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002
What is a PEP?
PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design
document providing information to the Python community, or
describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a
concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
the feature.
We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The
PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the PEPs are maintained as plain text files under CVS
control, their revision history is the historical record of the
feature proposal[1].
Kinds of PEPs
There are two kinds of PEPs. A standards track PEP describes a
new feature or implementation for Python. An informational PEP
describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or
information to the Python community, but does not propose a new
feature. Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python
community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors
are free to ignore informational PEPs or follow their advice.
PEP Work Flow
The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <peps(a)python.org>, assigns numbers
for each PEP and changes its status.
The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. It is highly
recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new
idea. The more focussed the PEP, the more successfully it tends
to be. The PEP editor reserves the right to reject PEP proposals
if they appear too unfocussed or too broad. If in doubt, split
your PEP into several well-focussed ones.
Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using
the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in
the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
around the idea. The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first
attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able. Small
enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected
into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to
the SourceForge patch manager[2] or feature request tracker[3].
The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor <peps(a)python.org> with
a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP.
This draft must be written in PEP style as described below.
If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft',
and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP
editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP
status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
compatibility, or not in keeping with the Python philosophy. The
BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum) can be
consulted during the approval phase, and is the final arbitrator
of the draft's PEP-ability.
If a pre-PEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-PEP
to the comp.lang.python newsgroup (a.k.a. python-list(a)python.org
mailing list) to help flesh it out, gain feedback and consensus
from the community at large, and improve the PEP for
re-submission.
The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to
the community forums, and marshaling community support for it. As
updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if
they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to
the PEP editor for committing.
Standards track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
a reference implementation. The PEP should be reviewed and
accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
Final.
PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been
discussed on python-list(a)python.org and/or python-dev(a)python.org
will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended
discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies
to keep the discussions efficient include, setting up a separate
SIG mailing list for the topic, having the PEP author accept
private comments in the early design phases, etc. PEP authors
should use their discretion here.
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
it back to the author(s) for revision.
Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
completed. When the reference implementation is complete and
accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to `Final.'
A PEP can also be assigned status `Deferred.' The PEP author or
editor can assign the PEP this status when no progress is being
made on the PEP. Once a PEP is deferred, the PEP editor can
re-assign it to draft status.
A PEP can also be `Rejected'. Perhaps after all is said and done
it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of
this fact.
PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the
original obsolete. This is intended for Informational PEPs, where
version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
PEP work flow is as follows:
Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
^
+----> Rejected
v
Deferred
Some informational PEPs may also have a status of `Active' if they
are never meant to be completed. E.g. PEP 1.
What belongs in a successful PEP?
Each PEP should have the following parts:
1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the
PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title
(limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and
optionally the contact info for each author, etc.
2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical
issue being addressed.
3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
labelled as placed in the public domain (see this PEP as an
example) or licensed under the Open Publication License[4].
4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The
specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).
5. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for PEPs that want to
change the Python language. It should clearly explain why the
existing language specification is inadequate to address the
problem that the PEP solves. PEP submissions without
sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
describing what motivated the design and why particular design
decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that
were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
supported in other languages.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the
community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
during discussion.
7. Backwards Compatibility -- All PEPs that introduce backwards
incompatibilities must include a section describing these
incompatibilities and their severity. The PEP must explain how
the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. PEP
submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility
treatise may be rejected outright.
8. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
be completed before any PEP is given status 'Final,' but it
need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better
to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
consensus on it before writing code.
The final implementation must include test code and
documentation appropriate for either the Python language
reference or the standard library reference.
PEP Template
PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a
rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and
converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web[5].
PEP 9 contains a boilerplate[7] template you can use to get
started writing your PEP.
Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble. The
headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with
`*' are optional and are described below. All other headers are
required.
PEP: <pep number>
Title: <pep title>
Version: <cvs version string>
Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final | Replaced>
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
* Requires: <pep numbers>
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
* Python-Version: <version number>
Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
* Replaces: <pep number>
* Replaced-By: <pep number>
The Author: header lists the names and optionally, the email
addresses of all the authors/owners of the PEP. The format of the
author entry should be
address(a)dom.ain (Random J. User)
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given. If there are multiple authors, each
should be on a separate line following RFC 822 continuation line
conventions. Note that personal email addresses in PEPs will be
obscured as a defense against spam harvesters.
Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which
indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
with. Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header.
While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing
list or URL where the PEP is being discussed. No Discussions-To:
header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with
the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing
lists. Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To: header
will not be obscured.
Created: records the date that the PEP was assigned a number,
while Post-History: is used to record the dates of when new
versions of the PEP are posted to python-list and/or python-dev.
Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.
PEPs may have a Requires: header, indicating the PEP numbers that
this PEP depends on.
PEPs may also have a Replaced-By: header indicating that a PEP has
been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the
number of the PEP that replaces the current document. The newer
PEP must have a Replaces: header containing the number of the PEP
that it rendered obsolete.
PEP Formatting Requirements
PEP headings must begin in column zero and the initial letter of
each word must be capitalized as in book titles. Acronyms should
be in all capitals. The body of each section must be indented 4
spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a
further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to
make the text readable. You must use two blank lines between the
last line of a section's body and the next section heading.
You must adhere to the Emacs convention of adding two spaces at
the end of every sentence. You should fill your paragraphs to
column 70, but under no circumstances should your lines extend
past column 79. If your code samples spill over column 79, you
should rewrite them.
Tab characters must never appear in the document at all. A PEP
should include the standard Emacs stanza included by example at
the bottom of this PEP.
A PEP must contain a Copyright section, and it is strongly
recommended to put the PEP in the public domain.
When referencing an external web page in the body of a PEP, you
should include the title of the page in the text, with a
footnote reference to the URL. Do not include the URL in the body
text of the PEP. E.g.
Refer to the Python Language web site [1] for more details.
...
[1] http://www.python.org
When referring to another PEP, include the PEP number in the body
text, such as "PEP 1". The title may optionally appear. Add a
footnote reference that includes the PEP's title and author. It
may optionally include the explicit URL on a separate line, but
only in the References section. Note that the pep2html.py script
will calculate URLs automatically, e.g.:
...
Refer to PEP 1 [7] for more information about PEP style
...
References
[7] PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use
this as the URL template:
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-xxxx.html
PEP numbers in URLs must be padded with zeros from the left, so as
to be exactly 4 characters wide, however PEP numbers in text are
never padded.
Reporting PEP Bugs, or Submitting PEP Updates
How you report a bug, or submit a PEP update depends on several
factors, such as the maturity of the PEP, the preferences of the
PEP author, and the nature of your comments. For the early draft
stages of the PEP, it's probably best to send your comments and
changes directly to the PEP author. For more mature, or finished
PEPs you may want to submit corrections to the SourceForge bug
manager[6] or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager[2] so that
your changes don't get lost. If the PEP author is a SF developer,
assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the PEP
editor.
When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first
with the PEP author and/or PEP editor.
PEP authors who are also SF committers, can update the PEPs
themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
Remember to also push the formatted PEP text out to the web by
doing the following:
% python pep2html.py -i NUM
where NUM is the number of the PEP you want to push out. See
% python pep2html.py --help
for details.
Transferring PEP Ownership
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of PEPs to
a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original
author as a co-author of the transferred PEP, but that's really up
to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is
because the original author no longer has the time or interest in
updating it or following through with the PEP process, or has
fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not
responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is
because you don't agree with the direction of the PEP. We try to
build consensus around a PEP, but if that's not possible, you can
always submit a competing PEP.
If you are interested assuming ownership of a PEP, send a message
asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the
PEP editor <peps(a)python.org>. If the original author doesn't
respond to email in a timely manner, the PEP editor will make a
unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can be
reversed. :).
References and Footnotes
[1] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
for retrieving older revisions. For those without direct access
to the CVS tree, you can browse the current and past PEP revisions
via the SourceForge web site at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=…
[2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
[3] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=355470&group_id=5470&func=browse
[4] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
[5] The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves.
Try "pep2html.py --help" for details.
The URL for viewing PEPs on the web is
http://www.python.org/peps/
[6] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
[7] PEP 9, Sample PEP Template
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End:
The current memory layout for dictionaries is
unnecessarily inefficient. It has a sparse table of
24-byte entries containing the hash value, key pointer,
and value pointer.
Instead, the 24-byte entries should be stored in a
dense table referenced by a sparse table of indices.
For example, the dictionary:
d = {'timmy': 'red', 'barry': 'green', 'guido': 'blue'}
is currently stored as:
entries = [['--', '--', '--'],
[-8522787127447073495, 'barry', 'green'],
['--', '--', '--'],
['--', '--', '--'],
['--', '--', '--'],
[-9092791511155847987, 'timmy', 'red'],
['--', '--', '--'],
[-6480567542315338377, 'guido', 'blue']]
Instead, the data should be organized as follows:
indices = [None, 1, None, None, None, 0, None, 2]
entries = [[-9092791511155847987, 'timmy', 'red'],
[-8522787127447073495, 'barry', 'green'],
[-6480567542315338377, 'guido', 'blue']]
Only the data layout needs to change. The hash table
algorithms would stay the same. All of the current
optimizations would be kept, including key-sharing
dicts and custom lookup functions for string-only
dicts. There is no change to the hash functions, the
table search order, or collision statistics.
The memory savings are significant (from 30% to 95%
compression depending on the how full the table is).
Small dicts (size 0, 1, or 2) get the most benefit.
For a sparse table of size t with n entries, the sizes are:
curr_size = 24 * t
new_size = 24 * n + sizeof(index) * t
In the above timmy/barry/guido example, the current
size is 192 bytes (eight 24-byte entries) and the new
size is 80 bytes (three 24-byte entries plus eight
1-byte indices). That gives 58% compression.
Note, the sizeof(index) can be as small as a single
byte for small dicts, two bytes for bigger dicts and
up to sizeof(Py_ssize_t) for huge dict.
In addition to space savings, the new memory layout
makes iteration faster. Currently, keys(), values, and
items() loop over the sparse table, skipping-over free
slots in the hash table. Now, keys/values/items can
loop directly over the dense table, using fewer memory
accesses.
Another benefit is that resizing is faster and
touches fewer pieces of memory. Currently, every
hash/key/value entry is moved or copied during a
resize. In the new layout, only the indices are
updated. For the most part, the hash/key/value entries
never move (except for an occasional swap to fill a
hole left by a deletion).
With the reduced memory footprint, we can also expect
better cache utilization.
For those wanting to experiment with the design,
there is a pure Python proof-of-concept here:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/578375
YMMV: Keep in mind that the above size statics assume a
build with 64-bit Py_ssize_t and 64-bit pointers. The
space savings percentages are a bit different on other
builds. Also, note that in many applications, the size
of the data dominates the size of the container (i.e.
the weight of a bucket of water is mostly the water,
not the bucket).
Raymond
I've received some enthusiastic emails from someone who wants to
revive restricted mode. He started out with a bunch of patches to the
CPython runtime using ctypes, which he attached to an App Engine bug:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=671
Based on his code (the file secure.py is all you need, included in
secure.tar.gz) it seems he believes the only security leaks are
__subclasses__, gi_frame and gi_code. (I have since convinced him that
if we add "restricted" guards to these attributes, he doesn't need the
functions added to sys.)
I don't recall the exploits that Samuele once posted that caused the
death of rexec.py -- does anyone recall, or have a pointer to the
threads?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
It appears there's no obvious link from bugs.python.org to the contributor
agreement - you need to go via the unintuitive link Foundation ->
Contribution Forms (and from what I've read, you're prompted when you add a
patch to the tracker).
I'd suggest that if the "Contributor Form Received" field is "No" in user
details, there be a link to http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/.
Tim Delaney
Hello.
I would like to discuss on the language summit a potential inclusion
of cffi[1] into stdlib. This is a project Armin Rigo has been working
for a while, with some input from other developers. It seems that the
main reason why people would prefer ctypes over cffi these days is
"because it's included in stdlib", which is not generally the reason I
would like to hear. Our calls to not use C extensions and to use an
FFI instead has seen very limited success with ctypes and quite a lot
more since cffi got released. The API is fairly stable right now with
minor changes going in and it'll definitely stablize until Python 3.4
release. Notable projects using it:
* pypycore - gevent main loop ported to cffi
* pgsql2cffi
* sdl-cffi bindings
* tls-cffi bindings
* lxml-cffi port
* pyzmq
* cairo-cffi
* a bunch of others
So relatively a lot given that the project is not even a year old (it
got 0.1 release in June). As per documentation, the advantages over
ctypes:
* The goal is to call C code from Python. You should be able to do so
without learning a 3rd language: every alternative requires you to
learn their own language (Cython, SWIG) or API (ctypes). So we tried
to assume that you know Python and C and minimize the extra bits of
API that you need to learn.
* Keep all the Python-related logic in Python so that you don’t need
to write much C code (unlike CPython native C extensions).
* Work either at the level of the ABI (Application Binary Interface)
or the API (Application Programming Interface). Usually, C libraries
have a specified C API but often not an ABI (e.g. they may document a
“struct” as having at least these fields, but maybe more). (ctypes
works at the ABI level, whereas Cython and native C extensions work at
the API level.)
* We try to be complete. For now some C99 constructs are not
supported, but all C89 should be, including macros (and including
macro “abuses”, which you can manually wrap in saner-looking C
functions).
* We attempt to support both PyPy and CPython, with a reasonable path
for other Python implementations like IronPython and Jython.
* Note that this project is not about embedding executable C code in
Python, unlike Weave. This is about calling existing C libraries from
Python.
so among other things, making a cffi extension gives you the same
level of security as writing C (and unlike ctypes) and brings quite a
bit more flexibility (API vs ABI issue) that let's you wrap arbitrary
libraries, even those full of macros.
Cheers,
fijal
.. [1]: http://cffi.readthedocs.org/en/release-0.5/
hi, everyone:
I want to compile python 3.3 with bz2 support on RedHat 5.5 but fail to do that. Here is how I do it:
1、download bzip2 and compile it(make、make -f Makefile_libbz2_so、make install)
2、chang to python 3.3 source directory : ./configure --with-bz2=/usr/local/include
3、make
4、make install
after installation complete, I test it：
[root@localhost Python-3.3.0]# python3 -c "import bz2"
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
File "/usr/local/lib/python3.3/bz2.py", line 21, in <module>
from _bz2 import BZ2Compressor, BZ2Decompressor
ImportError: No module named '_bz2'
By the way, RedHat 5.5 has a built-in python 2.4.3. Would it be a problem?
Hi all,
I've been looking for a Github mirror for Python, and found two:
* https://github.com/python-git/python has a lot of forks/watches/starts
but seems to be very out of date (last updated 4 years ago)
* https://github.com/python-mirror/python doesn't appear to be very popular
but is updated daily
Are some of you the owners of these repositories? Should we consolidate to
a single "semi-official" mirror?
Eli
Hi,
This PEP proposed to add a __locallookup__ slot to type objects,
which is used by _PyType_Lookup and super_getattro instead of peeking
in the tp_dict of classes. The PEP text explains why this is needed.
Differences with the previous version:
* Better explanation of why this is a useful addition
* type.__locallookup__ is no longer optional.
* I've added benchmarking results using pybench.
(using the patch attached to issue 18181)
Ronald
PEP: 447
Title: Add __locallookup__ method to metaclass
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren(a)mac.com>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 12-Jun-2013
Post-History: 2-Jul-2013, 15-Jul-2013, 29-Jul-2013
Abstract
========
Currently ``object.__getattribute__`` and ``super.__getattribute__`` peek
in the ``__dict__`` of classes on the MRO for a class when looking for
an attribute. This PEP adds an optional ``__locallookup__`` method to
a metaclass that can be used to override this behavior.
Rationale
=========
It is currently not possible to influence how the `super class`_ looks
up attributes (that is, ``super.__getattribute__`` unconditionally
peeks in the class ``__dict__``), and that can be problematic for
dynamic classes that can grow new methods on demand.
The ``__locallookup__`` method makes it possible to dynamicly add
attributes even when looking them up using the `super class`_.
The new method affects ``object.__getattribute__`` (and
`PyObject_GenericGetAttr`_) as well for consistency.
Background
----------
The current behavior of ``super.__getattribute__`` causes problems for
classes that are dynamic proxies for other (non-Python) classes or types,
an example of which is `PyObjC`_. PyObjC creates a Python class for every
class in the Objective-C runtime, and looks up methods in the Objective-C
runtime when they are used. This works fine for normal access, but doesn't
work for access with ``super`` objects. Because of this PyObjC currently
includes a custom ``super`` that must be used with its classes.
The API in this PEP makes it possible to remove the custom ``super`` and
simplifies the implementation because the custom lookup behavior can be
added in a central location.
The superclass attribute lookup hook
====================================
Both ``super.__getattribute__`` and ``object.__getattribute__`` (or
`PyObject_GenericGetAttr`_ in C code) walk an object's MRO and peek in the
class' ``__dict__`` to look up attributes. A way to affect this lookup is
using a method on the meta class for the type, that by default looks up
the name in the class ``__dict__``.
In Python code
--------------
A meta type can define a method ``__locallookup__`` that is called during
attribute resolution by both ``super.__getattribute__`` and ``object.__getattribute``::
class MetaType(type):
def __locallookup__(cls, name):
try:
return cls.__dict__[name]
except KeyError:
raise AttributeError(name) from None
The ``__locallookup__`` method has as its arguments a class and the name of the attribute
that is looked up. It should return the value of the attribute without invoking descriptors,
or raise `AttributeError`_ when the name cannot be found.
The `type`_ class provides a default implementation for ``__locallookup__``, that
looks up the name in the class dictionary.
Example usage
.............
The code below implements a silly metaclass that redirects attribute lookup to uppercase
versions of names::
class UpperCaseAccess (type):
def __locallookup__(cls, name):
return cls.__dict__[name.upper()]
class SillyObject (metaclass=UpperCaseAccess):
def m(self):
return 42
def M(self):
return "fourtytwo"
obj = SillyObject()
assert obj.m() == "fortytwo"
In C code
---------
A new slot ``tp_locallookup`` is added to the ``PyTypeObject`` struct, this slot
corresponds to the ``__locallookup__`` method on `type`_.
The slot has the following prototype::
PyObject* (*locallookupfunc)(PyTypeObject* cls, PyObject* name);
This method should lookup *name* in the namespace of *cls*, without looking at superclasses,
and should not invoke descriptors. The method returns ``NULL`` without setting an exception
when the *name* cannot be found, and returns a new reference otherwise (not a borrowed reference).
Use of this hook by the interpreter
-----------------------------------
The new method is required for metatypes and as such is defined on `type_`. Both
``super.__getattribute__`` and ``object.__getattribute__``/`PyObject_GenericGetAttr`_
(through ``_PyType_Lookup``) use the this ``__locallookup__`` method when walking
the MRO.
Other changes to the implementation
-----------------------------------
The change for `PyObject_GenericGetAttr`_ will be done by changing the private function
``_PyType_Lookup``. This currently returns a borrowed reference, but must return a new
reference when the ``__locallookup__`` method is present. Because of this ``_PyType_Lookup``
will be renamed to ``_PyType_LookupName``, this will cause compile-time errors for all out-of-tree
users of this private API.
The attribute lookup cache in ``Objects/typeobject.c`` is disabled for classes that have a
metaclass that overrides ``__locallookup__``, because using the cache might not be valid
for such classes.
Performance impact
------------------
The pybench output below compares an implementation of this PEP with the regular
source tree, both based on changeset a5681f50bae2, run on an idle machine an
Core i7 processor running Centos 6.4.
Even though the machine was idle there were clear differences between runs,
I've seen difference in "minimum time" vary from -0.1% to +1.5%, with simular
(but slightly smaller) differences in the "average time" difference.
.. ::
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PYBENCH 2.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* using CPython 3.4.0a0 (default, Jul 29 2013, 13:01:34) [GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3)]
* disabled garbage collection
* system check interval set to maximum: 2147483647
* using timer: time.perf_counter
* timer: resolution=1e-09, implementation=clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark: pep447.pybench
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rounds: 10
Warp: 10
Timer: time.perf_counter
Machine Details:
Platform ID: Linux-2.6.32-358.114.1.openstack.el6.x86_64-x86_64-with-centos-6.4-Final
Processor: x86_64
Python:
Implementation: CPython
Executable: /tmp/default-pep447/bin/python3
Version: 3.4.0a0
Compiler: GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3)
Bits: 64bit
Build: Jul 29 2013 14:09:12 (#default)
Unicode: UCS4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing with: default.pybench
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rounds: 10
Warp: 10
Timer: time.perf_counter
Machine Details:
Platform ID: Linux-2.6.32-358.114.1.openstack.el6.x86_64-x86_64-with-centos-6.4-Final
Processor: x86_64
Python:
Implementation: CPython
Executable: /tmp/default/bin/python3
Version: 3.4.0a0
Compiler: GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3)
Bits: 64bit
Build: Jul 29 2013 13:01:34 (#default)
Unicode: UCS4
Test minimum run-time average run-time
this other diff this other diff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BuiltinFunctionCalls: 45ms 44ms +1.3% 45ms 44ms +1.3%
BuiltinMethodLookup: 26ms 27ms -2.4% 27ms 27ms -2.2%
CompareFloats: 33ms 34ms -0.7% 33ms 34ms -1.1%
CompareFloatsIntegers: 66ms 67ms -0.9% 66ms 67ms -0.8%
CompareIntegers: 51ms 50ms +0.9% 51ms 50ms +0.8%
CompareInternedStrings: 34ms 33ms +0.4% 34ms 34ms -0.4%
CompareLongs: 29ms 29ms -0.1% 29ms 29ms -0.0%
CompareStrings: 43ms 44ms -1.8% 44ms 44ms -1.8%
ComplexPythonFunctionCalls: 44ms 42ms +3.9% 44ms 42ms +4.1%
ConcatStrings: 33ms 33ms -0.4% 33ms 33ms -1.0%
CreateInstances: 47ms 48ms -2.9% 47ms 49ms -3.4%
CreateNewInstances: 35ms 36ms -2.5% 36ms 36ms -2.5%
CreateStringsWithConcat: 69ms 70ms -0.7% 69ms 70ms -0.9%
DictCreation: 52ms 50ms +3.1% 52ms 50ms +3.0%
DictWithFloatKeys: 40ms 44ms -10.1% 43ms 45ms -5.8%
DictWithIntegerKeys: 32ms 36ms -11.2% 35ms 37ms -4.6%
DictWithStringKeys: 29ms 34ms -15.7% 35ms 40ms -11.0%
ForLoops: 30ms 29ms +2.2% 30ms 29ms +2.2%
IfThenElse: 38ms 41ms -6.7% 38ms 41ms -6.9%
ListSlicing: 36ms 36ms -0.7% 36ms 37ms -1.3%
NestedForLoops: 43ms 45ms -3.1% 43ms 45ms -3.2%
NestedListComprehensions: 39ms 40ms -1.7% 39ms 40ms -2.1%
NormalClassAttribute: 86ms 82ms +5.1% 86ms 82ms +5.0%
NormalInstanceAttribute: 42ms 42ms +0.3% 42ms 42ms +0.0%
PythonFunctionCalls: 39ms 38ms +3.5% 39ms 38ms +2.8%
PythonMethodCalls: 51ms 49ms +3.0% 51ms 50ms +2.8%
Recursion: 67ms 68ms -1.4% 67ms 68ms -1.4%
SecondImport: 41ms 36ms +12.5% 41ms 36ms +12.6%
SecondPackageImport: 45ms 40ms +13.1% 45ms 40ms +13.2%
SecondSubmoduleImport: 92ms 95ms -2.4% 95ms 98ms -3.6%
SimpleComplexArithmetic: 28ms 28ms -0.1% 28ms 28ms -0.2%
SimpleDictManipulation: 57ms 57ms -1.0% 57ms 58ms -1.0%
SimpleFloatArithmetic: 29ms 28ms +4.7% 29ms 28ms +4.9%
SimpleIntFloatArithmetic: 37ms 41ms -8.5% 37ms 41ms -8.7%
SimpleIntegerArithmetic: 37ms 41ms -9.4% 37ms 42ms -10.2%
SimpleListComprehensions: 33ms 33ms -1.9% 33ms 34ms -2.9%
SimpleListManipulation: 28ms 30ms -4.3% 29ms 30ms -4.1%
SimpleLongArithmetic: 26ms 26ms +0.5% 26ms 26ms +0.5%
SmallLists: 40ms 40ms +0.1% 40ms 40ms +0.1%
SmallTuples: 46ms 47ms -2.4% 46ms 48ms -3.0%
SpecialClassAttribute: 126ms 120ms +4.7% 126ms 121ms +4.4%
SpecialInstanceAttribute: 42ms 42ms +0.6% 42ms 42ms +0.8%
StringMappings: 94ms 91ms +3.9% 94ms 91ms +3.8%
StringPredicates: 48ms 49ms -1.7% 48ms 49ms -2.1%
StringSlicing: 45ms 45ms +1.4% 46ms 45ms +1.5%
TryExcept: 23ms 22ms +4.9% 23ms 22ms +4.8%
TryFinally: 32ms 32ms -0.1% 32ms 32ms +0.1%
TryRaiseExcept: 17ms 17ms +0.9% 17ms 17ms +0.5%
TupleSlicing: 49ms 48ms +1.1% 49ms 49ms +1.0%
WithFinally: 48ms 47ms +2.3% 48ms 47ms +2.4%
WithRaiseExcept: 45ms 44ms +0.8% 45ms 45ms +0.5%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals: 2284ms 2287ms -0.1% 2306ms 2308ms -0.1%
(this=pep447.pybench, other=default.pybench)
Alternative proposals
---------------------
``__getattribute_super__``
..........................
An earlier version of this PEP used the following static method on classes::
def __getattribute_super__(cls, name, object, owner): pass
This method performed name lookup as well as invoking descriptors and was necessarily
limited to working only with ``super.__getattribute__``.
Reuse ``tp_getattro``
.....................
It would be nice to avoid adding a new slot, thus keeping the API simpler and
easier to understand. A comment on `Issue 18181`_ asked about reusing the
``tp_getattro`` slot, that is super could call the ``tp_getattro`` slot of all
methods along the MRO.
That won't work because ``tp_getattro`` will look in the instance
``__dict__`` before it tries to resolve attributes using classes in the MRO.
This would mean that using ``tp_getattro`` instead of peeking the class
dictionaries changes the semantics of the `super class`_.
References
==========
* `Issue 18181`_ contains a prototype implementation
Copyright
=========
This document has been placed in the public domain.
.. _`Issue 18181`: http://bugs.python.org/issue18181
.. _`super class`: http://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#super
.. _`NotImplemented`: http://docs.python.org/3/library/constants.html#NotImplemented
.. _`PyObject_GenericGetAttr`: http://docs.python.org/3/c-api/object.html#PyObject_GenericGetAttr
.. _`type`: http://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#type
.. _`AttributeError`: http://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#AttributeError
.. _`PyObjC`: http://pyobjc.sourceforge.net/
.. _`classmethod`: http://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#classmethod
Dear Python developers community,
Recently I found out that it not possible to debug python code if it
is a part of zip-module.
Python version being used is 3.3.0
Well known GUI debuggers like Eclipse+PyDev or PyCharm are unable to
start debugging and give the following warning:
---
pydev debugger: CRITICAL WARNING: This version of python seems to be
incorrectly compiled (internal generated filenames are not absolute)
pydev debugger: The debugger may still function, but it will work
slower and may miss breakpoints.
---
So I started my own investigation of this issue and results are the following.
At first I took traditional python debugger 'pdb' to analyze how it
behaves during debugging of zipped module.
'pdb' showed me some backtaces and filename part for stack entries
looks malformed.
I expected something like
'full-path-to-zip-dir/my_zipped_module.zip/subdir/test_module.py'
but realy it looks like 'full-path-to-current-dir/subdir/test_module.py'
Source code in pdb.py and bdb.py (which one are a part of python
stdlib) gave me the answer why it happens.
The root cause are inside Bdb.format_stack_entry() + Bdb.canonic()
Please take a look at the following line inside 'format_stack_entry' method:
filename = self.canonic(frame.f_code.co_filename)
For zipped module variable 'frame.f_code.co_filename' holds _relative_
file path started from the root of zip archive like
'subdir/test_module.py'
And as result Bdb.canonic() method gives what we have -
'full-path-to-current-dir/subdir/test_module.py'
---
So my final question.
Could anyone confirm that it is a bug in python core subsystem which
one is responsible for loading zipped modules,
or something is wrong with my zipped module ?
If it is a bug could you please submit it into official python bugtracker ?
I never did it before and afraid to do something wrong.
Thanks,
Vitaly Murashev
Hi,
I suspect that this will be put into a proper PEP at some point, but I'd
like to bring this up for discussion first. This came out of issues 13429
and 16392.
http://bugs.python.org/issue13429http://bugs.python.org/issue16392
Stefan
The problem
===========
Python modules and extension modules are not being set up in the same way.
For Python modules, the module is created and set up first, then the module
code is being executed. For extensions, i.e. shared libraries, the module
init function is executed straight away and does both the creation and
initialisation. This means that it knows neither the __file__ it is being
loaded from nor its package (i.e. its FQMN). This hinders relative imports
and resource loading. In Py3, it's also not being added to sys.modules,
which means that a (potentially transitive) re-import of the module will
really try to reimport it and thus run into an infinite loop when it
executes the module init function again. And without the FQMN, it's not
trivial to correctly add the module to sys.modules either.
We specifically run into this for Cython generated modules, for which it's
not uncommon that the module init code has the same level of complexity as
that of any 'regular' Python module. Also, the lack of a FQMN and correct
file path hinders the compilation of __init__.py modules, i.e. packages,
especially when relative imports are being used at module init time.
The proposal
============
I propose to split the extension module initialisation into two steps in
Python 3.4, in a backwards compatible way.
Step 1: The current module init function can be reduced to just creating
the module instance and returning it (and potentially doing some simple C
level setup). Optionally, after creating the module (and this is the new
part), the module init code can register a C callback function that will be
called after setting up the module.
Step 2: The shared library importer receives the module instance from the
module init function, adds __file__, __path__, __package__ and friends to
the module dict, and then checks for the callback. If non-NULL, it calls it
to continue the module initialisation by user code.
The callback
============
The callback is defined as follows::
int (*PyModule_init_callback)(PyObject* the_module,
PyModuleInitContext* context)
"PyModuleInitContext" is a struct that is meant mostly for making the
callback more future proof by allowing additional parameters to be passed
in. For now, I can see a use case for the following fields::
struct PyModuleInitContext {
char* module_name;
char* qualified_module_name;
}
Both names are encoded in UTF-8. As for the file path, I consider it best
to retrieve it from the module's __file__ attribute as a Python string
object to reduce filename encoding problems.
Note that this struct argument is not strictly required, but given that
this proposal would have been much simpler if the module init function had
accepted such an argument in the first place, I consider it a good idea not
to let this chance pass by again.
The registration of the callback uses a new C-API function:
int PyModule_SetInitFunction(PyObject* module,
PyModule_init_callback callback)
The function name uses "Set" instead of "Register" to make it clear that
there is only one such function per module.
An alternative would be a new module creation function "PyModule_Create3()"
that takes the callback as third argument, in addition to what
"PyModule_Create2()" accepts. This would require users to explicitly pass
in the (second) version argument, which might be considered only a minor issue.
Implementation
==============
The implementation requires local changes to the extension module importer
and a new C-API function. In order to store the callback, it should use a
new field in the module object struct.
Open questions
==============
It is not clear how extensions should be handled that register more than
one module in their module init function, e.g. compiled packages. One
possibility would be to leave the setup to the user, who would have to know
all FQMNs anyway in this case, although not the import file path.
Alternatively, the import machinery could use a stack to remember for which
modules a callback was registered during the last init function call, set
up all of them and then call their callbacks. It's not clear if this meets
the intention of the user.
Alternatives
============
1) It would be possible to make extension modules optionally export another
symbol, e.g. "PyInit2_modulename", that the shared library loader would
call in addition to the required function "PyInit_modulename". This would
remove the need for a new API that registers the above callback. The
drawback is that it also makes it easier to write broken code because a
Python version or implementation that does not support this second symbol
would simply not call it, without error. The new C-API function would let
the build fail instead if it is not supported.
2) The callback could be made available as a Python function in the module
dict, thus also removing the need for an explicit registration API.
However, this approach would add overhead to both sides, the importer code
and the user provided module init code, as it would require additional
dictionary handling and the implementation of a one-time Python function in
user code. It would also suffer from the problem that missing support in
the runtime would pass silently.
3) The callback could be registered statically in the PyModuleDef struct by
adding a new field. This is not trivial to do in a backwards compatible way
because the struct would grow longer without explicit initialisation by
existing user code. Extending PyModuleDef_HEAD_INIT might be possible but
would still break at least binary compatibility.
4) Pass a new context argument into the module init function that contains
all information necessary to properly and completely set up the module at
creation time. This would provide a much simpler and cleaner solution than
the proposed solution. However, it will not be possible before Python 4 as
it breaks backwards compatibility with all existing extension modules at
both the source and binary level.
