Hi,

In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new "trace_instructions: bool" optional (keyword-only?) parameter without breaking the backward compatibility. Should we add a new function instead?

Would it be possible to make the API "future-proof", so we can extend it again later?

I almost never used sys.settrace(), so I prefer to ask on this python-dev list.

Copy of the George King's message: https://bugs.python.org/issue29400#msg298441

""" After reviewing the thread, I'm reminded that the main design problem concerns preserving behavior of this idiom: "old=sys.gettrace(); ...; sys.settrace(old)"

If we add more state, i.e. the `trace_instructions` bool, then the above idiom no longer correctly stores/reloads the full state.

Here are the options that I see:

1. New APIs: * `gettrace() -> Callable # no change.` * `settrace(tracefunc: Callable) -> None # no change.` * `gettraceinst() -> Callable # new.` * `settraceinst(tracefunc: Callable) -> None # new.` Behavior: * `settrace()` raises if `gettraceinst()` is not None. * `settraceinst()` raises if `gettrace()` is not None.

2. Add keyword arg to `settrace`. * `gettrace() -> Callable # no change.` * `settrace(tracefunc: Callable, trace_instructions:Optional[bool]=False) -> None # added keyword.` * `gettracestate() -> Dict[str, Any] # new.` Behavior: * `gettracestate()` returns the complete trace-related state: currently, `tracefunc` and `trace_instructions` fields. * `gettrace()` raises an exception if any of the trace state does not match the old behavior, i.e. if `trace_instructions` is set.

3. New API, but with extensible keyword args: * `settracestate(tracefunc: Callable, trace_instructions:Optional[bool]=False) -> None # new.` * `gettracestate() -> Dict[str, Any] # new.` Behavior: * `settrace()` raises if `gettracestate()` is not None. * `settracestate()` raises if `gettrace()` is not None.

As I see it: * approach #1 is more conservative because it does not modify the old API. * approach #2 is more extensible because all future features can be represented by the state dictionary. * approach #3 has both of these strengths, but is also the most work.

Examples of possible future features via keywords: * branch-level tracing, as briefly disscussed above. * instruction filtering set, which could be a more general version of the branch tracing.

I intend to prototype one or both of these, but I'm also feeling a bit of time pressure to get the basic feature on track for 3.7. """

settraceinst() doesn't seem "future-proof" to me.

Victor