Indeed, the 2.0 code is very different, and got this case right. I'm a little surprised no one is arguing that changing this code now could break some applications. Maybe the fact no one noticed the docs were wrong proves that no one ever tried returning None from a local trace function. --Ned. On 4/30/2011 8:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

I think you need to go back farther in time. :-) In Python 2.0 the call_trace function in ceval.c has a completely different signature (but the docs are the same). I haven't checked all history but somewhere between 2.0 and 2.3, SET_LINENO-less tracing was added, and that's where the implementation must have gone wrong. So I think we should fix the code.

--Guido

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:

...

This week I learned something new about trace functions (how to write a C trace function that survives a sys.settrace(sys.gettrace()) round-trip), and while writing up what I learned, I was surprised to discover that trace functions don't behave the way I thought, or the way the docs say they behave.

The docs say:

The trace function is invoked (with event set to 'call') whenever a new local scope is entered; it should return a reference to a local trace function to be used that scope, or None if the scope shouldn’t be traced.

The local trace function should return a reference to itself (or to another function for further tracing in that scope), or None to turn off tracing in that scope.

It's that last part that's wrong: returning None from the trace function only has an effect on the first call in a new frame. Once the trace function returns a function for a frame, returning None from subsequent calls is ignored. A "local trace function" can't turn off tracing in its scope.

To demonstrate:

import sys

UPTO_LINE = 1

def t(frame, event, arg): num = frame.f_lineno print("line %d" % num) if num< UPTO_LINE: return t

def try_it(): print("twelve") print("thirteen") print("fourteen") print("fifteen")

UPTO_LINE = 1 sys.settrace(t) try_it()

UPTO_LINE = 13 sys.settrace(t) try_it()

Produces:

line 11 twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen line 11 line 12 twelve line 13 thirteen line 14 fourteen line 15 fifteen line 15

The first call to try_it() returns None immediately, preventing tracing for the rest of the function. The second call returns None at line 13, but the rest of the function is traced anyway. This behavior is the same in all versions from 2.3 to 3.2, in fact, the 100 lines of code in sysmodule.c responsible for Python tracing functions are completely unchanged through those versions. (A deeper mystery that I haven't looked into yet is why Python 3.x intersperses all of these lines with "line 18" interjections.)

I'm writing this email because I'm not sure whether this is a behavior bug or a doc bug. One of them is wrong, since they disagree. The documented behavior makes sense, and is what people have all along thought the trace function did. The actual behavior is a bit more complicated to explain, but is what people have actually been experiencing. FWIW, PyPy implements the documented behavior.

Should we fix the code or the docs? I'd be glad to supply a patch for either.

--Ned.

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:

On 2/05/2011 9:27 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote: ...

...

Maybe the fact no one noticed the docs were wrong proves that no one ever tried returning None from a local trace function.

Or if they did, they should have complained by now.  IMO, if the behaviour regresses from how it is documented and how it previously worked and no reports of the regression exist, we should just fix it without regard to people relying on the "new" functionality...

+1 Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia