On Mon., 10 Feb. 2020, 8:31 pm Mark Shannon, <mark@hotpy.org> wrote:

On 08/02/2020 11:49 am, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Unfortunately, the simplifications you propose would be backwards
> incompatible - it's existing behaviour that there's a real shared dict
> (even on optimised frames) where arbitrary extra attributes can be
> stored (even though they don't become accessible as Python variables).
> I don't want to make frame objects any bigger than they already are,
> so the natural solution is to store the mapping proxy as `f_locals`,
> and then bypass the proxy in order to make `PyEval_GetLocals` still
> "work" (at least as well as it ever did).

The proposed changes in PEP 558 are also backwards incompatible.
I thought that was the point. The current implementation is broken in
weird ways and we want to fix that. Since we need to break backward
compatibility anyway, why not do it in a way the makes the behaviour as
well defined and maintainable as possible.

The changes at the Python level are *technically* incompatible, but Nathaniel's review made a compelling case that the real world compatibility problems were likely to be minimal, and in some cases would actually be fixing latent defects in existing code.

I think that PEP 558, as it stands, is still a bit fragile because of
the handling of cycles between the locals proxy and the frame.

Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure there's any way to get rid of that without getting rid of PyEval_GetLocals() completely, and that *wouldn't* be a subtle break in the slightest (it's even part of the stable ABI).

Since that API returns a borrowed reference, the real reference has to live somewhere, and the most natural place is the frame f_locals attribute (as that's where it lives today).

And even if we *did* manage to resolve that dilemna, we then run into the problem that we also need the frame object to hold the proxy because the C level equivalent of accessing the attribute is just "frame->f_locals": it's not an opaque struct, so that pointer is part of the public API.

I agree I should explain this aspect clearly in the PEP though (and likely in some block comments in the implementation), as you're quite right that the associated reference borrowing and cycle breaking code is thoroughly nasty now that the namespace object isn't going to be a simple dictionary.

(Thinking out loud, though: something that might work is for each locals proxy to use a common snapshot namespace, and store *that* on the frame, exactly as we do today. That would replace the cycle in the current implementation with multiple references to the common snapshot)


>
> PyObject_GetAttr(string) also doesn't do that same thing as the
> proposed C functions, since it invokes the Python descriptor
> machinery. (Note that the discussion at
> https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-558-defined-semantics-for-locals/2936/
> is more up to date than the PEP text where the C API is concerned)

`PyObject_GetAttr("attr")` has the same semantics as the Python operator
`x.attr` which is under the control of `type(x)`, in this case the frame
object class. The descriptor protocol is irrelevant.

The now proposed C APIs don't include one to get access to the write-through proxy, so you do indeed have to use PyObject_GetAttr for that.

The proposed APIs instead aim to make it possible to access the Python locals without needing to acquire a frame object reference at all.


>
> The reference to tracing mode dependent semantics puzzles me, as that
> was removed in December:
> https://github.com/python/peps/commit/54888058ce8ad5257114652d9b41e8d1237b8ef9#diff-5abd04ea7e619670b52d61883873e784
>

That was my misreading. The behaviour of `f_locals` in the PEP is not
very clear, as it is buried in the discussion of CPython changes.
Could you add it to the proposal section?

Aye, I'll do that when clarifying the complications arising from wanting to keep PyEval_GetLocals() and direct "frame->f_locals" access working pretty closely to the way they have in the past, while still resolving the other issues.

(And writing that sentence is what made me realise that you could be right and it may be possible to make this work without needing to give the frame object a reference to any of the write-through proxy objects)

Cheers,
Nick.