Paul Moore writes:

2008/12/23 Rocky Bernstein :

...

Now that there is a package mechanism (are package mechanisms?) like zipimporter that bundle source code into a single file, should the notion of a "file" location should be adjusted to include the package and/or importer?

Check PEP 302 (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0302/) specifically the get_source (optional) method.

Yes, that's one of the things I was thinking when I wrote: As best as I can tell, PEP 302 which discussed importer hooks and suggests a standard way to get file data. And by "suggests" I meant was implying that yes I know this is optional.

It's not exactly what you describe, but it may help.

Yes, it's not exactly what is desired.

Please note that it's optional - if you loaded the code from a zipfile containing only bytecode files, there is no source to get, so you have to be prepared for that case. But if the source is available, this should give you a way of getting to it.

What is wanted is a uniform way get and describe a file location from a code object that takes into account the file might be a member of an archive. Are there even guidelines for saying what string goes into a code object's co_filename? Clearly it should be related to the source code that generated the code, and there are various conventions that seem to exist when the code comes from an "eval" or an "exec". But empirically it seems as though there's some variation. It could be an absolute file or a file with no root directory specified. (But is it possible to have things like "." and ".."?). And in the case of a member of a package what happens? Should it be just the member without the package? Or should it include the package name like /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg/tracer.py ? Or be unspecified? If left unspecified as I gather it is now, it makes it more important to have some sort of common routine to be able to pick out the archive part in a filesystem from the member name inside the archive.

Paul.

2008/12/23 :

What is wanted is a uniform way get and describe a file location from a code object that takes into account the file might be a member of an archive.

But a code object may not have come from a file. Ignoring the interactive prompt (not because it's unimportant, just because people have a tendency to assume it's the only special case :-)) you need to consider code loaded via a PEP302 importer from (say) a sqlite database, or code created using compile(), or possibly even more esoteric means. So I'm not sure your request is clearly specified.

Are there even guidelines for saying what string goes into a code object's co_filename? Clearly it should be related to the source code that generated the code, and there are various conventions that seem to exist when the code comes from an "eval" or an "exec".

I'm not aware of guidelines - the documentation for compile() says "The filename argument should give the file from which the code was read; pass some recognizable value if it wasn't read from a file ('<string>' is commonly used)" which is pretty non-commital.

But empirically it seems as though there's some variation. It could be an absolute file or a file with no root directory specified. (But is it possible to have things like "." and ".."?). And in the case of a member of a package what happens? Should it be just the member without the package? Or should it include the package name like /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg/tracer.py ?

Or be unspecified? If left unspecified as I gather it is now, it makes it more important to have some sort of common routine to be able to pick out the archive part in a filesystem from the member name inside the archive.

I think you need to be clear on *why* you want to know this information. Once it's clear what you're trying to achieve, it will be easier to say what the options are. It sounds like you're trying to propose a stronger convention, to be enforced in the future. (At least, your suggestion of producing stack traces implies that you want stack trace code not to have to deal with the current situation). When PEP 302 was being developed, we were looking at similar issues. That's why I pointed you at get_source() - it was the best we could do with all the various conflicting requirements, and the fact that it's optional is because we had to cater for cases where there simply wasn't a meaningful answer. Frankly, backward compatibility requirements kill a lot of the options here. Maybe what you want is a *pair* of linked conventions: - co_filename (or a replacement) returns a (notionally opaque, but in practice a filename for file-based cases) token representing "the file or other object the code came from" - xxx.get_source_code(token) is a function (I don't know where, xxx is a placeholder for some "suitable" module) which, given such a token, returns the source, or None if there's no viable concept of "the source". Or maybe you want a (possibly separate) attribute of a code object, which holds a string containing a human-readable (but quite possibly not machine-parseable) value representing the "place the code came from" - co_filename is essentially this at the moment, and maybe your complaint is merely that you don't find its contents sufficiently human-readable in the case of the zipimport module (in which case you might want to search some of the archives for the discussions on the constraints imposed on zipimport, because objects on sys.path must be strings and cannot be arbitrary objects...) I'm sorry if this is a little rambling. I can appreciate that there's some sort of issue that you see here, but I don't yet see any practical way of changing things that would help. And as always, there's backward compatibility to consider - existing code isn't going to change, so new code has to be prepared to handle that. I hope this is of some help, Paul.

Paul Moore writes:

2008/12/23 :

...

What is wanted is a uniform way get and describe a file location from a code object that takes into account the file might be a member of an archive.

But a code object may not have come from a file.

Right. That's why I mentioned for example "eval" and "exec" that you cite below. So remove the "file" in what is cited above. Replace with: "a unform way to get information (not necessarily just the source text) about the location/origin of code from a code object.

Ignoring the interactive prompt (not because it's unimportant, just because people have a tendency to assume it's the only special case :-)) you need to consider code loaded via a PEP302 importer from (say) a sqlite database, or code created using compile(), or possibly even more esoteric means.

So I'm not sure your request is clearly specified.

Is the above any more clear?

...

Are there even guidelines for saying what string goes into a code object's co_filename? Clearly it should be related to the source code that generated the code, and there are various conventions that seem to exist when the code comes from an "eval" or an "exec".

I'm not aware of guidelines - the documentation for compile() says "The filename argument should give the file from which the code was read; pass some recognizable value if it wasn't read from a file ('<string>' is commonly used)" which is pretty non-commital.

...

But empirically it seems as though there's some variation. It could be an absolute file or a file with no root directory specified. (But is it possible to have things like "." and ".."?). And in the case of a member of a package what happens? Should it be just the member without the package? Or should it include the package name like /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg/tracer.py ?

Or be unspecified? If left unspecified as I gather it is now, it makes it more important to have some sort of common routine to be able to pick out the archive part in a filesystem from the member name inside the archive.

I think you need to be clear on *why* you want to know this information. Once it's clear what you're trying to achieve, it will be easier to say what the options are.

This is what I wrote originally (slightly modified): A use case here I am thinking of here is in a stack trace or a debugger, or a tool which wants to show in great detail, information from a code object obtained possibly via a frame object. I find it kind of sucky to see in a traceback: "<string>" as opposed to the text (or prefix of the text) of the actual string that was passed. Or something that has been referred to as a "pseudo-file" like /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg/foo/bar.py when it is really member foo/bar.py of zipped egg /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg. (As a separate issue, it seems that zipimporter file locations inside setuptools may have a problem.) Inside a debugger or an IDE, it is conceivable a person might want loader, and module information, and if the code is part of an archive file, then member information. (If part of an eval string then, the eval string.)

It sounds like you're trying to propose a stronger convention, to be enforced in the future.

Well, I wasn't sure if there was one. But I gather from what you write, there isn't. :-) Yes, I would suggest a stronger convention. Or a more up-front statement that none is desired/forthcoming.

(At least, your suggestion of producing stack traces implies that you want stack trace code not to have to deal with the current situation). When PEP 302 was being developed, we were looking at similar issues. That's why I pointed you at get_source() - it was the best we could do with all the various conflicting requirements, and the fact that it's optional is because we had to cater for cases where there simply wasn't a meaningful answer. Frankly, backward compatibility requirements kill a lot of the options here.

Maybe what you want is a *pair* of linked conventions:

- co_filename (or a replacement) returns a (notionally opaque, but in practice a filename for file-based cases) token representing "the file or other object the code came from"

This would be nice.

- xxx.get_source_code(token) is a function (I don't know where, xxx is a placeholder for some "suitable" module) which, given such a token, returns the source, or None if there's no viable concept of "the source".

There always is a viable concept of a source. It's whatever was done to get the code. For example, if it was via an eval then the source was the eval function and a string, same for exec. If it's via database access, well that then and some summary info about what's known about that.

Or maybe you want a (possibly separate) attribute of a code object, which holds a string containing a human-readable (but quite possibly not machine-parseable) value representing the "place the code came from" - co_filename is essentially this at the moment, and maybe your complaint is merely that you don't find its contents sufficiently human-readable in the case of the zipimport module (in which case you might want to search some of the archives for the discussions on the constraints imposed on zipimport, because objects on sys.path must be strings and cannot be arbitrary objects...)

There are two problems. One is displaying location information in an unambiguous way -- the pseudo-file above is ambiguous and so is <string> since there's no guarentee that OS's make to not name a file that. The second problem is programmatically getting information such as a debugger or an IDE might do so that the information can be conveyed back to a user who might want to inspect surrounding source code or modules.

I'm sorry if this is a little rambling. I can appreciate that there's some sort of issue that you see here, but I don't yet see any practical way of changing things that would help. And as always, there's backward compatibility to consider - existing code isn't going to change, so new code has to be prepared to handle that.

I hope this is of some help,

Yes, thanks. At least I now have a clearer idea of the state of where things stand.

Paul.

2008/12/23 R. Bernstein :

A use case here I am thinking of here is in a stack trace or a debugger, or a tool which wants to show in great detail, information from a code object obtained possibly via a frame object.

Thanks for the clarifications. I see what you're after much better now.

I find it kind of sucky to see in a traceback: "<string>" as opposed to the text (or prefix of the text) of the actual string that was passed. Or something that has been referred to as a "pseudo-file" like /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg/foo/bar.py when it is really member foo/bar.py of zipped egg /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/tracer-0.1.0-py2.5.egg.

Fair comment. That points to a "human readable" type of string. It's not available at the moment, but I guess it could be. But see below.

...

- xxx.get_source_code(token) is a function (I don't know where, xxx is a placeholder for some "suitable" module) which, given such a token, returns the source, or None if there's no viable concept of "the source".

There always is a viable concept of a source. It's whatever was done to get the code. For example, if it was via an eval then the source was the eval function and a string, same for exec. If it's via database access, well that then and some summary info about what's known about that.

Hmm, "source" colloquially, yes "bytecode loaded from ....\xxx.pyc", for example. But not "source" in the sense of "source code". Some applications run with only bytecode shipped, no source code available at all.

There are two problems. One is displaying location information in an unambiguous way -- the pseudo-file above is ambiguous and so is <string> since there's no guarentee that OS's make to not name a file that. The second problem is programmatically getting information such as a debugger or an IDE might do so that the information can be conveyed back to a user who might want to inspect surrounding source code or modules.

This is more than you were asking for above. The first problem is addressed with a "human readable" (narrative) description, as above. The second, however, requires machine-readable access to source code (if it exists). That's what the loader get_source() call does for you. But you have to be prepared for the fact that it may not be possible to get source code, and decide what you want to happen in that case.

...

I hope this is of some help,

Yes, thanks. At least I now have a clearer idea of the state of where things stand.

Good. Sorry it's not better news :-) Paul

R. Bernstein wrote:

Nick Coghlan writes:

...

3. Do what a number of standard library APIs (e.g. linecache) that accept filenames do and also accept an optional "module globals" argument.

Actually, I did this and committed a change (to pydb) before posting any of these queries. ;-)

If "a number of standard library APIs" are doing the *same* thing, then shouldn't this exposed as a common routine?

If on the other hand, by "a number" you mean "one" as in linecache -- 1 *is* a number too! -- then perhaps the relevant code that is buried inside the "updatecache" should be exposed on its own. (As a side benefit that code can be tested separately too!)

Should I file a feature request for this?

The reason for my slightly odd phrasing is that all of the examples I was originally going to mention (traceback, pdb, doctest, inspect) actually all end up calling linecache to do the heavy lifting. So it is possible that linecache.getlines() actually *is* the common routine you're looking for - it just needs to be added to the documentation and the __all__ attribute for linecache to be officially supported. Currently, only the single line getline() function is documented and exposed via __all__, but I don't see any reason for that restriction - linecache.getlines() has been there with a stable API since at least Python 2.5. For cases where you have an appropriate Python object (i.e. a module, function, method, class, traceback, frame or code object) rather than a pseudo-filename, then inspect.getsource() actually jumps through a lot of hoops to try to find the actual source code for that object - in those cases, using the appropriate inspect function is generally a much better idea than trying to interpret __file__ yourself. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------

R. Bernstein wrote:

Nick Coghlan writes:

...

R. Bernstein wrote:

...

Nick Coghlan writes:

...

3. Do what a number of standard library APIs (e.g. linecache) that accept filenames do and also accept an optional "module globals" argument.

Actually, I did this and committed a change (to pydb) before posting any of these queries. ;-)

If "a number of standard library APIs" are doing the *same* thing, then shouldn't this exposed as a common routine?

If on the other hand, by "a number" you mean "one" as in linecache -- 1 *is* a number too! -- then perhaps the relevant code that is buried inside the "updatecache" should be exposed on its own. (As a side benefit that code can be tested separately too!)

Should I file a feature request for this?

The reason for my slightly odd phrasing is that all of the examples I was originally going to mention (traceback, pdb, doctest, inspect) actually all end up calling linecache to do the heavy lifting.

So it is possible that linecache.getlines() actually *is* the common routine you're looking for

I never asked about getting the text lines for the source code, no matter how many times people suggest that as an alternative. :-)

Instead, I was asking about a common way to get information about the source location for say a frame or traceback object (which might include package name and type) and suggest that there should be a more unambiguous way to display this information than seems to be in use at present.

I agree. Since PEP 302 many parts of Python are rather too file-centric for my liking. I notes almost four years ago, for example, that the interpreter assumes that the os module will be imported from filestore in order to set the prefix. This issue appears to have received no attention since, and I'm certainly not the one with the best skills or knowledge to solve this problem. http://bugs.python.org/issue1116520

Part of work to retrieve or displaying that information has to do the some of the same things that is inside of linecache.updatecache() *before* it retrieves the lines of the source code (when possible). And possibly parts of it include parts of what's done in pieces of the inspect module.

...

- it just needs to be added to the documentation and the __all__ attribute for linecache to be officially supported. Currently, only the single line getline() function is documented and exposed via __all__, but I don't see any reason for that restriction - linecache.getlines() has been there with a stable API since at least Python 2.5.

For cases where you have an appropriate Python object (i.e. a module, function, method, class, traceback, frame or code object) rather than a pseudo-filename, then inspect.getsource() actually jumps through a lot of hoops to try to find the actual source code for that object - in those cases, using the appropriate inspect function is generally a much better idea than trying to interpret __file__ yourself.

Cheers, Nick.

Thanks for the information. I will keep in mind those inspect routines.

They probably will be a helpful for another problem I had been wondering about -- how one can determine if there is no code associated at a given a line and file. (In other words and invalid location for a debugger line breakpoint, such as because the line part of a comment or the interior line of a string that spans many lines)

Looks like that start of some necessary attention to this issue. The inspect module might indeed offer the right facilities. I'm still wondering what we do about the various prefix settings in an environment where there are no filestore imports at all. In the event I can assist feel free to rope me in. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/