[Cython] [Python-Dev] C-level duck typing
markflorisson88 at gmail.com
Mon May 28 10:54:38 CEST 2012
On 27 May 2012 23:12, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> <d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no> wrote:
>> On 05/18/2012 10:30 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> On 05/18/2012 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>> I think the main things we'd be looking for would be:
>>>> - a clear explanation of why a new metaclass is considered too complex a
>>>> - what the implications are for classes that have nothing to do with the
>>>> SciPy/NumPy ecosystem
>>>> - how subclassing would behave (both at the class and metaclass level)
>>>> Yes, defining a new metaclass for fast signature exchange has its
>>>> challenges - but it means that *our* concerns about maintaining
>>>> consistent behaviour in the default object model and avoiding adverse
>>>> effects on code that doesn't need the new behaviour are addressed
>>>> Also, I'd consider a functioning reference implementation using a custom
>>>> metaclass a requirement before we considered modifying type anyway, so I
>>>> think that's the best thing to pursue next rather than a PEP. It also
>>>> has the virtue of letting you choose which Python versions to target and
>>>> iterating at a faster rate than CPython.
>>> This seems right on target. I could make a utility code C header for
>>> such a metaclass, and then the different libraries can all include it
>>> and handshake on which implementation becomes the real one through
>>> sys.modules during module initialization. That way an eventual PEP will
>>> only be a natural incremental step to make things more polished, whether
>>> that happens by making such a metaclass part of the standard library or
>>> by extending PyTypeObject.
>> So I finally got around to implementing this:
>> Documentation now in a draft in the NumFOCUS SEP repo, which I believe is a
>> better place to store cross-project standards like this. (The NumPy
>> docstring standard will be SEP 100).
>> - No common runtime dependency
>> - 1 ns overhead per lookup (that's for the custom slot *alone*, no
>> fast-callable signature matching or similar)
>> - Slight annoyance: Types that want to use the metaclass must be a
>> PyHeapExtensibleType, to make the binary layout work with how CPython makes
>> subclasses from Python scripts
>> My conclusion: I think the metaclass approach should work really well.
> Few quick comments on skimming the code:
> The complicated nested #ifdef for __builtin_expect could be simplified to
> #if defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ > 2 || __GNUC_MINOR__ > 95)
> PyCustomSlots_Check should be called PyCustomSlots_CheckExact, surely?
> And given that, how can this code work if someone does subclass this
I think we should provide a wrapper for PyType_Ready, which just
copies the pointer to the table and the count directly into the
subclass. If a user then wishes to add stuff, the user can allocate a
new memory region dynamically, memcpy the base class' stuff in there,
and append some entries.
> Stealing a flag bit (but now to indicate this metaclass) would allow
> us to make a real PyCustomSlots_Check function that was still fast. It
> would also mean that different implementations didn't have to
> rendezvous on a single PyExtensibleType_Type, so long as they all used
> the same flag bit. That would let us skip monkeying around with
> Speaking of which, surely we should not be using sys.modules for this?
> Stashing it in sys itself or something would make more sense, if we're
> going to do it at all.
I think a module makes sense, if mangled appropriately. A module
really means shared state (even if the only state are the functions
> - N
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel at python.org
More information about the cython-devel