Python-Dev June 2020

python-dev@python.org

110 participants
55 discussions

PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines
by barry＠zope.com 18 May '21

18 May '21

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:

8 14

Boundaries between numbers and identifiers
by Serhiy Storchaka 15 Apr '21

15 Apr '21

In Python 2.5 `0or[]` was accepted by the Python parser. It became an error in 2.6 because "0o" became recognizing as an incomplete octal number. `1or[]` still is accepted. On other hand, `1if 2else 3` is accepted despites the fact that "2e" can be recognized as an incomplete floating point number. In this case the tokenizer pushes "e" back and returns "2". Shouldn't it do the same with "0o"? It is possible to make `0or[]` be parseable again. Python implementation is able to tokenize this example: $ echo '0or[]' | ./python -m tokenize 1,0-1,1: NUMBER '0' 1,1-1,3: NAME 'or' 1,3-1,4: OP '[' 1,4-1,5: OP ']' 1,5-1,6: NEWLINE '\n' 2,0-2,0: ENDMARKER '' On other hand, all these examples look weird. There is an assymmetry: `1or 2` is a valid syntax, but `1 or2` is not. It is hard to recognize visually the boundary between a number and the following identifier or keyword, especially if numbers can contain letters ("b", "e", "j", "o", "x") and underscores, and identifiers can contain digits. On both sides of the boundary can be letters, digits, and underscores. I propose to change the Python syntax by adding a requirement that there should be a whitespace or delimiter between a numeric literal and the following keyword.

8 10

pathlib.Path: inconsistent symlink_to() and link_to()
by Barney Gale 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

Hi, Pathlib's symlink_to() and link_to() methods have different argument orders, so: a.symlink_to(b) # Creates a symlink from A to B a.link_to(b) # Creates a hard link from B to A I don't think link_to() was intended to be implemented this way, as the docs say "Create a hard link pointing to a path named target.". It's also inconsistent with everything else in pathlib, most obviously symlink_to(). Bug report here: https://bugs.python.org/issue39291 This /really/ irks me. Apparently it's too late to fix link_to(), so I'd like to suggest we add a new hardlink_to() method that matches the symlink_to() argument order. link_to() then becomes deprecated/undocumented. Any thoughts? Barney

4 5

PEP 622: Structural Pattern Matching -- followup
by Guido van Rossum 26 Jul '20

26 Jul '20

Everyone, If you've commented and you're worried you haven't been heard, please add your issue *concisely* to this new thread. Note that the following issues are already open and will be responded to separately; please don't bother commenting on these until we've done so: - Alternative spellings for '|' - Whether to add an 'else' clause (and how to indent it) - A different token for wildcards instead of '_' - What to do about the footgun of 'case foo' vs. 'case .foo' (Note that the last two could be combined, e.g. '?foo' or 'foo?' to mark a variable binding and '?' for a wildcard.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-…>

22 35

PEP 387: backwards compatibility policy
by Brett Cannon 20 Jul '20

20 Jul '20

Started at a discussion at https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-387-backwards-compatibilty-policy/4421 to try to finally resolve this PEP and our backwards compatibility policy.

2 2

Recent PEP-8 change
by Ethan Furman 06 Jul '20

06 Jul '20

On 06/29/2020 08:13 AM, Keara Berlin wrote: > Hi all, I didn't mean for there to be significant differences between what I posted here versus in the commit message. Sorry for any confusion around that! Thank you for putting them both in one place here - that is helpful. To be clear, the proposed change: > "When writing English, ensure that your comments are clear and easily understandable to other English speakers." And the commit message: > Instead of requiring that comments be written in Strunk & White Standard English, require instead that English-language comments be clear and easily understandable by other English speakers. This accomplishes the same goal without upholding relics of white supremacy. Many native English speakers do not use Standard English as their native dialect, so requiring conformation to Standard English centers whiteness in an inappropriate and unnecessary way, and can alienate and put up barriers for people of color and those whose native dialect of English is not Standard English. This change is a simple way to correct that while maintaining the original intent of the requirement. I find it difficult to express my horror and outrage with this commit message, but let me try: Picture this scene from a movie I watched a long time ago: towards the end of the US Civil War a small band of deserters approach a large home; only one man, his wife, and their baby are home as the man's father and brothers have left to run errands. The leader of the small band approaches the man and asks for water. The man, happily and cheerfully, obliges and draws a bucket of fresh well water for them. When he turns around to give them the bucket of water, the leader runs him through with his saber (stabs him in his guts all the way to the hilt). That's what it felt like: betrayal. Before the PEP-8 amendment thread I thought Strunk & White was some popular culture reference, and as such I had no interest in it. However, given the brouhaha that ensued I did some digging to discover for myself what it was. Here is what I have found: - it has had at least four editions thus far - it has been modernized as times have changed (the 2000 edition removed the advice to use masculine pronouns whenever possible, and warns that some will find unnecessary masculine usage offensive) - its advice is hotly debated amongst linguists (not surprising) and perhaps the most relevant: - White is the last name of the second author. Of course I don't know if Keara or Guido knew any of this, but it certainly feels to me that the commit message is ostracizing an entire family line because they had the misfortune to have the wrong last name. In fact, it seems like Strunk & White is making changes to be inclusive in its advice -- exactly what I would have thought we wanted on our side ("our side" being the diverse and welcoming side). According to whichever dictionary Google uses, white supremacy is: > noun > the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society. Does Keara, Guido, or anyone, have any such examples from Strunk & White? Finally, what's wrong with having a standard? Communication, especially in written form, is difficult enough without everyone using whatever style/grammar/colloquialisms happen to suit their fancy at the time. As a silly example: when I started using Python having the first parameter of a class method be `self` irked me, so I used `yo` instead (Spanish word for "I") -- it was shorter, and it tickled my fancy. Two years into using Python and I replaced every instance of `yo` in my libraries to `self`; the cognitive dissonance between my code and everyone else's was an unnecessary distraction. Speaking of unnecessary, I think the change to PEP-8 was unnecessary. I think it was pushed through without any consideration for those against it, and I think the commit message was extremely offensive. To hopefully stave off some attacks against me: - I am not white - I am not Ivy League educated - Black lives do matter - Police are terrifying -- ~Ethan~

36 108

Re: [Python-ideas] Re: Amend PEP-8 to require clear, understandable comments instead of Strunk & White Standard English comments
by Paul Sokolovsky 05 Jul '20

05 Jul '20

Hello, Shouldn't such feedback be also cross-posted to the python-dev mailing list? Also note the original pull request, https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1470, and differences of what was written in the pull request description and what went in the commit message. On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 22:10:14 +0200 "Giampaolo Rodola'" <g.rodola(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: > https://github.com/python/peps/commit/0c6427dcec1e98ca0bd46a876a7219ee4a934… > > > Instead of requiring that comments be written in Strunk & White > > Standard > English, require instead that English-language comments be clear and > easily understandable by other English speakers. This accomplishes > the same goal without upholding relics of white supremacy. Many > native English speakers do not use Standard English as their native > dialect, so requiring conformation to Standard English centers > whiteness in an inappropriate and unnecessary way, and can alienate > and put up barriers for people of color and those whose native > dialect of English is not Standard English. This change is a simple > way to correct that while maintaining the original intent of the > requirement. > > This has nothing to do with making the wording "clear and > understandable" (I agree on that). It's about, once again, bringing > race-based politics into Python, and spreading hate towards a > specific group of people: whites. Whether you're aware of it or not, > there is a term for this: it's racism. I want to remind everyone that > most of us here simply want to contribute code. We do it for free, > and don't want to be involved in "this", because frankly it's > disgusting. Doing something out of passion and for free, and at the > same time seeing these sorts of things happening on a regular basis, > looks and feels like an insult, and will only lead to people leaving > this place. > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:27 PM Keara Berlin <kearaberlin(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, this is a very small change, but I thought I would field it > > here to see if anyone has suggestions or ideas. Instead of > > requiring that comments be written in Strunk & White Standard > > English, PEP-8 should require instead that English-language > > comments be clear and easily understandable by other English > > speakers. This accomplishes the same goal without alienating or > > putting up barriers for people (especially people of color) whose > > native dialect of English is not Standard English. This change is a > > simple way to correct that while maintaining the original intent of > > the requirement. This change may even make the requirement more > > clear to people who are not familiar with Strunk & White, since for > > programmers, the main relevant aspect of that standard is "be clear > > and concise;" simply saying that instead of referencing Strunk & > > White may communicate this more effectively. Here is the current > > line in PEP-8: "When writing English, follow Strunk and White." > > I propose changing this line to "When writing English, ensure that > > your comments are clear and easily understandable to other English > > speakers." _______________________________________________ > > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas(a)python.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave(a)python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > > Message archived at > > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/AE2M7… > > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > > > > -- > Giampaolo - gmpy.dev <https://gmpy.dev/about> -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

24 50

When can we remove wchar_t* cache from string?
by Inada Naoki 03 Jul '20

03 Jul '20

Hi, all. Py_UNICODE has been deprecated since PEP 393 (Flexible string representation). wchar_t* cache in the string object is used only in deprecated APIs. It waste 1 word (8 bytes on 64bit machine) per string instance. The deprecated APIs are documented as "Deprecated since version 3.3, will be removed in version 4.0." See https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/unicode.html#deprecated-py-unicode-apis But when PEP 393 is implemented, no one expects 3.10 will be released. Can we reschedule the removal? My proposal is, schedule the removal on Python 3.11. But we will postpone the removal if we can not remove its usage until it. I grepped the use of the deprecated APIs from top 4000 PyPI packages. result: https://github.com/methane/notes/blob/master/2020/wchar-cache/deprecated-use step: https://github.com/methane/notes/blob/master/2020/wchar-cache/README.md I noticed: * Most of them are generated by Cython. * I reported it to Cython so Cython 0.29.21 will fix them. I expect more than 1 year between Cython 0.29.21 and Python 3.11rc1. * Most of them are `PyUnicode_FromUnicode(NULL, 0);` * We may be able to keep PyUnicode_FromUnicode, but raise error when length>0. Regards, -- Inada Naoki <songofacandy(a)gmail.com>

9 22

Plan to remove Py_UNICODE APis except PEP 623.
by Inada Naoki 02 Jul '20

02 Jul '20

Hi, all. I proposed PEP 623 to remove Unicode APIs deprecated by PEP 393. In this thread, I am proposing removal of Py_UNICODE (not Unicode objects) APIs deprecated by PEP 393. Please reply for any comments. ## Undocumented, have Py_DEPRECATED There is no problem to remove them in Python 3.10. I will just do it. * Py_UNICODE_str*** functions -- already removed in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/21164 * PyUnicode_GetMax() ## Documented and have Py_DEPRECATED * PyLong_FromUnicode * PyUnicode_AsUnicodeCopy * PyUnicode_Encode * PyUnicode_EncodeUTF7 * PyUnicode_EncodeUTF8 * PyUnicode_EncodeUTF16 * PyUnicode_EncodeUTF32 * PyUnicode_EncodeUnicodeEscape * PyUnicode_EncodeRawUnicodeEscape * PyUnicode_EncodeLatin1 * PyUnicode_EncodeASCII * PyUnicode_EncodeCharmap * PyUnicode_TranslateCharmap * PyUnicode_EncodeMBCS These APIs are documented. The document has ``.. deprecated:: 3.3 4.0`` directive. They have been `Py_DEPRECATED` since Python 3.6 too. Plan: Change the document to ``.. deprecated:: 3.0 3.10`` and remove them in Python 3.10. ## PyUnicode_EncodeDecimal It is not documented. It has not been deprecated by Py_DEPRECATED. Plan: Add Py_DEPRECATED in Python 3.9 and remove it in 3.11. ## PyUnicode_TransformDecimalToASCII It is documented, but doesn't have ``deprecated`` directive. It is not deprecated by Py_DEPRECATED. Plan: Add Py_DEPRECATED and ``deprecated 3.3 3.11`` directive in 3.9, and remove it in 3.11. ## _PyUnicode_ToLowercase, _PyUnicode_ToUppercase They are not deprecated by PEP 393, but bpo-12736. They are documented as deprecated, but don't have ``Py_DEPRECATED``. Plan: Add Py_DEPRECATED in 3.9, and remove them in 3.11. Note: _PyUnicode_ToTitlecase has Py_DEPRECATED. It can be removed in 3.10. -- Inada Naoki <songofacandy(a)gmail.com>

10 30

PEP 620: Hide implementation details from the C API
by Victor Stinner 02 Jul '20

02 Jul '20

Hi, PEP available at: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0620/ <introduction> This PEP is the result of 4 years of research work on the C API: https://pythoncapi.readthedocs.io/ It's the third version. The first version (2017) proposed to add a "new C API" and advised C extensions maintainers to opt-in for it: it was basically the same idea as PEP 384 limited C API but in a different color. Well, I had no idea of what I was doing :-) The second version (April 2020) proposed to add a new Python runtime built from the same code base as the regular Python runtime but in a different build mode, the regular Python would continue to be fully compatible. I wrote the third version, the PEP 620, from scratch. It now gives an explicit and concrete list of incompatible C API changes, and has better motivation and rationale sections. The main PEP novelty is the new pythoncapi_compat.h header file distributed with Python to provide new C API functions to old Python versions, the second novelty is the process to reduce the number of broken C extensions. Whereas PEPs are usually implemented in a single Python version, the implementation of this PEP is expected to be done carefully over multiple Python versions. The PEP lists many changes which are already implemented in Python 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9. It defines a process to reduce the number of broken C extensions when introducing the incompatible C API changes listed in the PEP. The process dictates the rhythm of these changes. </introduction> PEP: 620 Title: Hide implementation details from the C API Author: Victor Stinner <vstinner(a)python.org> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 19-June-2020 Python-Version: 3.10 Abstract ======== Introduce C API incompatible changes to hide implementation details. Once most implementation details will be hidden, evolution of CPython internals would be less limited by C API backward compatibility issues. It will be way easier to add new features. It becomes possible to experiment with more advanced optimizations in CPython than just micro-optimizations, like tagged pointers. Define a process to reduce the number of broken C extensions. The implementation of this PEP is expected to be done carefully over multiple Python versions. It already started in Python 3.7 and most changes are already completed. The `Process to reduce the number of broken C extensions`_ dictates the rhythm. Motivation ========== The C API blocks CPython evolutions ----------------------------------- Adding or removing members of C structures is causing multiple backward compatibility issues. Adding a new member breaks the stable ABI (PEP 384), especially for types declared statically (e.g. ``static PyTypeObject MyType = {...};``). In Python 3.4, the PEP 442 "Safe object finalization" added the ``tp_finalize`` member at the end of the ``PyTypeObject`` structure. For ABI backward compatibility, a new ``Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_FINALIZE`` type flag was required to announce if the type structure contains the ``tp_finalize`` member. The flag was removed in Python 3.8 (`bpo-32388 <https://bugs.python.org/issue32388>`_). The ``PyTypeObject.tp_print`` member, deprecated since Python 3.0 released in 2009, has been removed in the Python 3.8 development cycle. But the change broke too many C extensions and had to be reverted before 3.8 final release. Finally, the member was removed again in Python 3.9. C extensions rely on the ability to access directly structure members, indirectly through the C API, or even directly. Modifying structures like ``PyListObject`` cannot be even considered. The ``PyTypeObject`` structure is the one which evolved the most, simply because there was no other way to evolve CPython than modifying it. In the C API, all Python objects are passed as ``PyObject*``: a pointer to a ``PyObject`` structure. Experimenting tagged pointers in CPython is blocked by the fact that a C extension can technically dereference a ``PyObject*`` pointer and access ``PyObject`` members. Small "objects" can be stored as a tagged pointer with no concrete ``PyObject`` structure. Replacing Python garbage collector with a tracing garbage collector would also need to remove ``PyObject.ob_refcnt`` reference counter, whereas currently ``Py_INCREF()`` and ``Py_DECREF()`` macros access directly to ``PyObject.ob_refcnt``. Same CPython design since 1990: structures and reference counting ----------------------------------------------------------------- When the CPython project was created, it was written with one principle: keep the implementation simple enough so it can be maintained by a single developer. CPython complexity grew a lot and many micro-optimizations have been implemented, but CPython core design has not changed. Members of ``PyObject`` and ``PyTupleObject`` structures have not changed since the "Initial revision" commit (1990):: #define OB_HEAD \ unsigned int ob_refcnt; \ struct _typeobject *ob_type; typedef struct _object { OB_HEAD } object; typedef struct { OB_VARHEAD object *ob_item[1]; } tupleobject; Only names changed: ``object`` was renamed to ``PyObject`` and ``tupleobject`` was renamed to ``PyTupleObject``. CPython still tracks Python objects lifetime using reference counting internally and for third party C extensions (through the Python C API). All Python objects must be allocated on the heap and cannot be moved. Why is PyPy more efficient than CPython? ---------------------------------------- The PyPy project is a Python implementation which is 4.2x faster than CPython on average. PyPy developers chose to not fork CPython, but start from scratch to have more freedom in terms of optimization choices. PyPy does not use reference counting, but a tracing garbage collector which moves objects. Objects can be allocated on the stack (or even not at all), rather than always having to be allocated on the heap. Objects layouts are designed with performance in mind. For example, a list strategy stores integers directly as integers, rather than objects. Moreover, PyPy also has a JIT compiler which emits fast code thanks to the efficient PyPy design. PyPy bottleneck: the Python C API --------------------------------- While PyPy is way more efficient than CPython to run pure Python code, it is as efficient or slower than CPython to run C extensions. Since the C API requires ``PyObject*`` and allows to access directly structure members, PyPy has to associate a CPython object to PyPy objects and maintain both consistent. Converting a PyPy object to a CPython object is inefficient. Moreover, reference counting also has to be implemented on top of PyPy tracing garbage collector. These conversions are required because the Python C API is too close to the CPython implementation: there is no high-level abstraction. For example, structures members are part of the public C API and nothing prevents a C extension to get or set directly ``PyTupleObject.ob_item[0]`` (the first item of a tuple). See `Inside cpyext: Why emulating CPython C API is so Hard <https://morepypy.blogspot.com/2018/09/inside-cpyext-why-emulating-cpython-c…>`_ (Sept 2018) by Antonio Cuni for more details. Rationale ========= Hide implementation details --------------------------- Hiding implementation details from the C API has multiple advantages: * It becomes possible to experiment with more advanced optimizations in CPython than just micro-optimizations. For example, tagged pointers, and replace the garbage collector with a tracing garbage collector which can move objects. * Adding new features in CPython becomes easier. * PyPy should be able to avoid conversions to CPython objects in more cases: keep efficient PyPy objects. * It becomes easier to implement the C API for a new Python implementation. * More C extensions will be compatible with Python implementations other than CPython. Relationship with the limited C API ----------------------------------- The PEP 384 "Defining a Stable ABI" is in Python 3.4. It introduces the "limited C API": a subset of the C API. When the limited C API is used, it becomes possible to build a C extension only once and use it on multiple Python versions: that's the stable ABI. The main limitation of the PEP 384 is that C extensions have to opt-in for the limited C API. Only very few projects made this choice, usually to ease distribution of binaries, especially on Windows. This PEP moves the C API towards the limited C API. Ideally, the C API will become the limited C API and all C extensions will use the stable ABI, but this is out of this PEP scope. Specification ============= Summary ------- * (**Completed**) Reorganize the C API header files: create ``Include/cpython/`` and ``Include/internal/`` subdirectories. * (**Completed**) Move private functions exposing implementation details to the internal C API. * (**Completed**) Convert macros to static inline functions. * (**Completed**) Add new functions ``Py_SET_TYPE()``, ``Py_SET_REFCNT()`` and ``Py_SET_SIZE()``. The ``Py_TYPE()``, ``Py_REFCNT()`` and ``Py_SIZE()`` macros become functions which cannot be used as l-value. * (**Completed**) New C API functions must not return borrowed references. * (**In Progress**) Provide ``pythoncapi_compat.h`` header file. * (**In Progress**) Make structures opaque, add getter and setter functions. * (**Not Started**) Deprecate ``PySequence_Fast_ITEMS()``. * (**Not Started**) Convert ``PyTuple_GET_ITEM()`` and ``PyList_GET_ITEM()`` macros to static inline functions. Reorganize the C API header files --------------------------------- The first consumer of the C API was Python itself. There is no clear separation between APIs which must not be used outside Python, and API which are public on purpose. Header files must be reorganized in 3 API: * ``Include/`` directory is the limited C API: no implementation details, structures are opaque. C extensions using it get a stable ABI. * ``Include/cpython/`` directory is the CPython C API: less "portable" API, depends more on the Python version, expose some implementation details, few incompatible changes can happen. * ``Internal/internal/`` directory is the internal C API: implementation details, incompatible changes are likely at each Python release. The creation of the ``Include/cpython/`` directory is fully backward compatible. ``Include/cpython/`` header files cannot be included directly and are included automatically by ``Include/`` header files when the ``Py_LIMITED_API`` macro is not defined. The internal C API is installed and can be used for specific usage like debuggers and profilers which must access structures members without executing code. C extensions using the internal C API are tightly coupled to a Python version and must be recompiled at each Python version. **STATUS**: Completed (in Python 3.8) The reorganization of header files started in Python 3.7 and was completed in Python 3.8: * `bpo-35134 <https://bugs.python.org/issue35134>`_: Add a new Include/cpython/ subdirectory for the "CPython API" with implementation details. * `bpo-35081 <https://bugs.python.org/issue35081>`_: Move internal headers to ``Include/internal/`` Move private functions to the internal C API -------------------------------------------- Private functions which expose implementation details must be moved to the internal C API. If a C extension relies on a CPython private function which exposes CPython implementation details, other Python implementations have to re-implement this private function to support this C extension. **STATUS**: Completed (in Python 3.9) Private functions moved to the internal C API in Python 3.8: * ``_PyObject_GC_TRACK()``, ``_PyObject_GC_UNTRACK()`` Macros and functions excluded from the limited C API in Python 3.9: * ``_PyObject_SIZE()``, ``_PyObject_VAR_SIZE()`` * ``PyThreadState_DeleteCurrent()`` * ``PyFPE_START_PROTECT()``, ``PyFPE_END_PROTECT()`` * ``_Py_NewReference()``, ``_Py_ForgetReference()`` * ``_PyTraceMalloc_NewReference()`` * ``_Py_GetRefTotal()`` Private functions moved to the internal C API in Python 3.9: * GC functions like ``_Py_AS_GC()``, ``_PyObject_GC_IS_TRACKED()`` and ``_PyGCHead_NEXT()`` * ``_Py_AddToAllObjects()`` (not exported) * ``_PyDebug_PrintTotalRefs()``, ``_Py_PrintReferences()``, ``_Py_PrintReferenceAddresses()`` (not exported) Public "clear free list" functions moved to the internal C API an renamed to private functions and in Python 3.9: * ``PyAsyncGen_ClearFreeLists()`` * ``PyContext_ClearFreeList()`` * ``PyDict_ClearFreeList()`` * ``PyFloat_ClearFreeList()`` * ``PyFrame_ClearFreeList()`` * ``PyList_ClearFreeList()`` * ``PyTuple_ClearFreeList()`` * Functions simply removed: * ``PyMethod_ClearFreeList()`` and ``PyCFunction_ClearFreeList()``: bound method free list removed in Python 3.9. * ``PySet_ClearFreeList()``: set free list removed in Python 3.4. * ``PyUnicode_ClearFreeList()``: Unicode free list removed in Python 3.3. Convert macros to static inline functions ----------------------------------------- Converting macros to static inline functions have multiple advantages: * Functions have well defined parameter types and return type. * Functions can use variables with a well defined scope (the function). * Debugger can be put breakpoints on functions and profilers can display the function name in the call stacks. In most cases, it works even when a static inline function is inlined. * Functions don't have `macros pitfalls <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html>`_. Converting macros to static inline functions should only impact very few C extensions which use macros in unusual ways. For backward compatibility, functions must continue to accept any type, not only ``PyObject*``, to avoid compiler warnings, since most macros cast their parameters to ``PyObject*``. Python 3.6 requires C compilers to support static inline functions: the PEP 7 requires a subset of C99. **STATUS**: Completed (in Python 3.9) Macros converted to static inline functions in Python 3.8: * ``Py_INCREF()``, ``Py_DECREF()`` * ``Py_XINCREF()``, ``Py_XDECREF()`` * ``PyObject_INIT()``, ``PyObject_INIT_VAR()`` * ``_PyObject_GC_TRACK()``, ``_PyObject_GC_UNTRACK()``, ``_Py_Dealloc()`` Macros converted to regular functions in Python 3.9: * ``Py_EnterRecursiveCall()``, ``Py_LeaveRecursiveCall()`` (added to the limited C API) * ``PyObject_INIT()``, ``PyObject_INIT_VAR()`` * ``PyObject_GET_WEAKREFS_LISTPTR()`` * ``PyObject_CheckBuffer()`` * ``PyIndex_Check()`` * ``PyObject_IS_GC()`` * ``PyObject_NEW()`` (alias to ``PyObject_New()``), ``PyObject_NEW_VAR()`` (alias to ``PyObject_NewVar()``) * ``PyType_HasFeature()`` (always call ``PyType_GetFlags()``) * ``Py_TRASHCAN_BEGIN_CONDITION()`` and ``Py_TRASHCAN_END()`` macros now call functions which hide implementation details, rather than accessing directly members of the ``PyThreadState`` structure. Make structures opaque ---------------------- All structures of the C API should become opaque: C extensions must use getter or setter functions to get or set structure members. For example, ``tuple->ob_item[0]`` must be replaced with ``PyTuple_GET_ITEM(tuple, 0)``. To be able to move away from reference counting, ``PyObject`` must become opaque. Currently, the reference counter ``PyObject.ob_refcnt`` is exposed in the C API. All structures must become opaque, since they "inherit" from PyObject. For, ``PyFloatObject`` inherits from ``PyObject``:: typedef struct { PyObject ob_base; double ob_fval; } PyFloatObject; Making ``PyObject`` fully opaque requires converting ``Py_INCREF()`` and ``Py_DECREF()`` macros to function calls. This change has an impact on performance. It is likely to be one of the very last changes when making structures opaque. Making ``PyTypeObject`` structure opaque breaks C extensions declaring types statically (e.g. ``static PyTypeObject MyType = {...};``). C extensions must use ``PyType_FromSpec()`` to allocate types on the heap instead. Using heap types has other advantages like being compatible with subinterpreters. Combined with PEP 489 "Multi-phase extension module initialization", it makes a C extension behavior closer to a Python module, like allowing to create more than one module instance. Making ``PyThreadState`` structure opaque requires adding getter and setter functions for members used by C extensions. **STATUS**: In Progress (started in Python 3.8) The ``PyInterpreterState`` structure was made opaque in Python 3.8 (`bpo-35886 <https://bugs.python.org/issue35886>`_) and the ``PyGC_Head`` structure (`bpo-40241 <https://bugs.python.org/issue40241>`_) was made opaque in Python 3.9. Issues tracking the work to prepare the C API to make following structures opaque: * ``PyObject``: `bpo-39573 <https://bugs.python.org/issue39573>`_ * ``PyTypeObject``: `bpo-40170 <https://bugs.python.org/issue40170>`_ * ``PyFrameObject``: `bpo-40421 <https://bugs.python.org/issue40421>`_ * Python 3.9 adds ``PyFrame_GetCode()`` and ``PyFrame_GetBack()`` getter functions, and moves ``PyFrame_GetLineNumber`` to the limited C API. * ``PyThreadState``: `bpo-39947 <https://bugs.python.org/issue39947>`_ * Python 3.9 adds 3 getter functions: ``PyThreadState_GetFrame()``, ``PyThreadState_GetID()``, ``PyThreadState_GetInterpreter()``. Disallow using Py_TYPE() as l-value ----------------------------------- The ``Py_TYPE()`` function gets an object type, its ``PyObject.ob_type`` member. It is implemented as a macro which can be used as an l-value to set the type: ``Py_TYPE(obj) = new_type``. This code relies on the assumption that ``PyObject.ob_type`` can be modified directly. It prevents making the ``PyObject`` structure opaque. New setter functions ``Py_SET_TYPE()``, ``Py_SET_REFCNT()`` and ``Py_SET_SIZE()`` are added and must be used instead. The ``Py_TYPE()``, ``Py_REFCNT()`` and ``Py_SIZE()`` macros must be converted to static inline functions which can not be used as l-value. For example, the ``Py_TYPE()`` macro:: #define Py_TYPE(ob) (((PyObject*)(ob))->ob_type) becomes:: #define _PyObject_CAST_CONST(op) ((const PyObject*)(op)) static inline PyTypeObject* _Py_TYPE(const PyObject *ob) { return ob->ob_type; } #define Py_TYPE(ob) _Py_TYPE(_PyObject_CAST_CONST(ob)) **STATUS**: Completed (in Python 3.10) New functions ``Py_SET_TYPE()``, ``Py_SET_REFCNT()`` and ``Py_SET_SIZE()`` were added to Python 3.9. In Python 3.10, ``Py_TYPE()``, ``Py_REFCNT()`` and ``Py_SIZE()`` can no longer be used as l-value and the new setter functions must be used instead. New C API functions must not return borrowed references ------------------------------------------------------- When a function returns a borrowed reference, Python cannot track when the caller stops using this reference. For example, if the Python ``list`` type is specialized for small integers, store directly "raw" numbers rather than Python objects, ``PyList_GetItem()`` has to create a temporary Python object. The problem is to decide when it is safe to delete the temporary object. The general guidelines is to avoid returning borrowed references for new C API functions. No function returning borrowed functions is scheduled for removal by this PEP. **STATUS**: Completed (in Python 3.9) In Python 3.9, new C API functions returning Python objects only return strong references: * ``PyFrame_GetBack()`` * ``PyFrame_GetCode()`` * ``PyObject_CallNoArgs()`` * ``PyObject_CallOneArg()`` * ``PyThreadState_GetFrame()`` Avoid functions returning PyObject** ------------------------------------ The ``PySequence_Fast_ITEMS()`` function gives a direct access to an array of ``PyObject*`` objects. The function is deprecated in favor of ``PyTuple_GetItem()`` and ``PyList_GetItem()``. ``PyTuple_GET_ITEM()`` can be abused to access directly the ``PyTupleObject.ob_item`` member:: PyObject **items = &PyTuple_GET_ITEM(0); The ``PyTuple_GET_ITEM()`` and ``PyList_GET_ITEM()`` macros are converted to static inline functions to disallow that. **STATUS**: Not Started New pythoncapi_compat.h header file ----------------------------------- Making structures opaque requires modifying C extensions to use getter and setter functions. The practical issue is how to keep support for old Python versions which don't have these functions. For example, in Python 3.10, it is no longer possible to use ``Py_TYPE()`` as an l-value. The new ``Py_SET_TYPE()`` function must be used instead:: #if PY_VERSION_HEX >= 0x030900A4 Py_SET_TYPE(&MyType, &PyType_Type); #else Py_TYPE(&MyType) = &PyType_Type; #endif This code may ring a bell to developers who ported their Python code base from Python 2 to Python 3. Python will distribute a new ``pythoncapi_compat.h`` header file which provides new C API functions to old Python versions. Example:: #if PY_VERSION_HEX < 0x030900A4 static inline void _Py_SET_TYPE(PyObject *ob, PyTypeObject *type) { ob->ob_type = type; } #define Py_SET_TYPE(ob, type) _Py_SET_TYPE((PyObject*)(ob), type) #endif // PY_VERSION_HEX < 0x030900A4 Using this header file, ``Py_SET_TYPE()`` can be used on old Python versions as well. Developers can copy this file in their project, or even to only copy/paste the few functions needed by their C extension. **STATUS**: In Progress (implemented but not distributed by CPython yet) The ``pythoncapi_compat.h`` header file is currently developer at: https://github.com/pythoncapi/pythoncapi_compat Process to reduce the number of broken C extensions =================================================== Process to reduce the number of broken C extensions when introducing C API incompatible changes listed in this PEP: * Estimate how many popular C extensions are affected by the incompatible change. * Coordinate with maintainers of broken C extensions to prepare their code for the future incompatible change. * Introduce the incompatible changes in Python. The documentation must explain how to port existing code. It is recommended to merge such changes at the beginning of a development cycle to have more time for tests. * Changes which are the most likely to break a large number of C extensions should be announced on the capi-sig mailing list to notify C extensions maintainers to prepare their project for the next Python. * If the change breaks too many projects, reverting the change should be discussed, taking in account the number of broken packages, their importance in the Python community, and the importance of the change. The coordination usually means reporting issues to the projects, or even proposing changes. It does not require waiting for a new release including fixes for every broken project. Since more and more C extensions are written using Cython, rather directly using the C API, it is important to ensure that Cython is prepared in advance for incompatible changes. It gives more time for C extension maintainers to release a new version with code generated with the updated Cython (for C extensions distributing the code generated by Cython). Future incompatible changes can be announced by deprecating a function in the documentation and by annotating the function with ``Py_DEPRECATED()``. But making a structure opaque and preventing the usage of a macro as l-value cannot be deprecated with ``Py_DEPRECATED()``. The important part is coordination and finding a balance between CPython evolutions and backward compatibility. For example, breaking a random, old, obscure and unmaintained C extension on PyPI is less severe than breaking numpy. If a change is reverted, we move back to the coordination step to better prepare the change. Once more C extensions are ready, the incompatible change can be reconsidered. Version History =============== * Version 3, June 2020: PEP rewritten from scratch. Python now distributes a new ``pythoncapi_compat.h`` header and a process is defined to reduce the number of broken C extensions when introducing C API incompatible changes listed in this PEP. * Version 2, April 2020: `PEP: Modify the C API to hide implementation details <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/thread/HKM774XK…>`_. * Version 1, July 2017: `PEP: Hide implementation details in the C API <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/6XATDG…>`_ sent to python-ideas Copyright ========= This document has been placed in the public domain. -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.

13 37

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 June 2020