[pypy-dev] bug with vars() in a nested function
hpk at trillke.net
Tue Dec 23 15:09:43 CET 2003
Hi Rocco, hi Laura,
[Rocco Moretti Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 05:16:00PM -0600]
> Laura Creighton wrote:
> >I am now looking at our current crop of builtins, and thinking ...
> >'the only reason you lot are there is because CPython had you there'.
> >Now that we have hacked the architecture one more time again, grin,
> >we have something a lot cleaner (for now at any rate) ... I am
> >pushing for a more elegant definition of builtin, based on a
> >pragmatic idea of 'you have to be built in becauswe we cannot make
> >you any other way'
> Clarity is strained by the two connotations of "builtin" (i.e. 'always
> present') that can be meant. That is (for the CPython interpreter):
> * Written in C and statically linked to the interpreter.
> (Always present in the interpreter.)
> * Available in Python without having to import anything.
> (Always present in the language.)
> I'm under the impression that the __builtin__ module is so named for the
> second point, as there are a number of modules which meet the first
> point. (There happen to be 39 on my copy of CPython -
> PyPy's __builtin__ *has* to meet point #2 - otherwise it wouldn't be
> Python. But I agree with you on point #1 -- We should push to
> application level everything we can, and have the interpreter level be
> the absolute minimum needed in order to make it run.
Sure, that has been our goal almost all of the time. However,
code implemented at application level goes through the interpretation
indirection and is not only slower now but will probably
remain slower even after translation. Anyway, our new approaches
at implementing builtin modules surely improve the simplicity of
implementing app-level code and weawing it into interpreter level.
> >What of ours make it? Which cannot be made in app space and why,
> >given that interp space is dead? I think that we have gloriously
> >moved to a place where most of our builtins really do not have to be.
> >Some sort of execfile sort of thing is all we need.
Well, interpreter level code is far from dead but we might be able to
reduce it to a minimum level following our original "minimal python"
idea. I think that we are not doing so badly as the number of
interpreter-level builtins is not all that large.
The problem so far has been that the builtin module concept was kind of
complicated but this should be fixed soon, now: builtin modules are to
be defined at application level but can access/interact very dynamically
with interpreter level code at initialization time. I guess Armin will
write a few more sentences when he gets to checkin the new stuff.
> >This is probably wrong, and indicates that my vision is too idealised,
> >and I miss very real practical problems. I await more enlightenment.
> >But I still think that most of our 'builtins' are more 'reimplentations
> >of CPython builtins, done because CPython doesn't have them so we
> >couldn't have a working Python without them'. And we could
> >implement them as a module. When we have leftovers, real
> >problems in converting one object space to another, then things
> >like getdictscope -- or a more general thing that does this and more
> >actually -- strikes me as a thing that belongs __there__. Scoping
> >rules strike me as object space 'required things to leave a hook
> >out for'.
> Let me clarify - are you just referring to the __builtin__ module, or
> are you advocating a more expansive redesign where ObjSpace and
> interpreter core gets uplifted to App level?
> > But perhaps I am just confused again, and oversimplifying in my mind.
> I definitely agree with Laura. We should strive to push as much as
> possible to application level, for no other reason than it will make
> doing annotations, etc. easier.
> But there needs to be a good mechanism to provide interpreter level
> hooks for the app level functions.
yes, the main point here is that we probably want to avoid duplicate or
redundant state, for example calling on interpreter-level
and on app-level
should do the same thing but what happens if someone overrides
__builtin__.execfile from app level? Do we want the interpreter-level
to go through this new implementation or should it keep the "real"
reference? It seems tricky to decide this on a case-by-case basis.
When doing our recent "implement builtin at app-level and invoke
interp-level hooks" hack we had a similar consideration with "sys.modules"
which in CPython can be overriden at applevel but it doesn't affect
interpreter-level implementations. Otherwise you could get into a
state that makes it impossible to import anything anymore (e.g.
consider 'sys.modules = "no dict"'). So i am not sure what we
want to do about this "duplicate state" issue as there apparently
is a flexibility versus security tradeoff involved. I tend to
lean towards "flexibility", though :-)
> Take __import__. There is currently a commented out application level
> version in the builtin module. The __import__ functionality would work
> fine at application level, except for a few minor issues. You can't get
> sys.modules from app level, as that would require you to 'import sys',
> which leads to obvious recursion.
Hmmm, maybe exposing some general '_pypy_' builtin hook would allow
defining __import__ at app-level because we could provide a '_pypy_.sys'
attribute or maybe better "_pypy_.modules['sys']". I also thought about
exposing parts of the objectspace directly, and some builtins could
just be bound methods of the space, e.g.
len = _pypy_.space.len
delattr = _pypy_.space.delattr
as the object space and their corresponding builtin implementations share
the same signature. Some space-methods would probably be exposed
as readonly-attributes unless we want to provide ways to seriously mess
up your interpreter quickly :-) I think it's worth a try to see what can of
worms suddenly opens if we did this ...
More information about the Pypy-dev