[Python-Dev] [PEP 576/580] Comparing PEP 576 and 580

[INADA Naoki]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 7:27 PM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 19:10:48 +0900
> INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I said "So PEP 576/580 are needed only when implementing callable object".
> > I showed example "functools.partial or functools.lru_cache".
> >
> > Using FASTCALL for callable object, instead of tp_call is one of important goal
> > of PEP 576 and 580.
> >
> > So, cleary, ordinal extension author should be able to understand and implement
> > PEP 576 and 580.
>
> No, Jeroen is right here.  Ordinary extension authors do not need to
> understand and implement PEP 576 and 580.

Ah, my wording "ordinary" was wrong.

But Jeroen was wrong too.  He said "PEP 567 is also quite
technical and not understandable by people who don't care about
context variables."

People can skip PEP 567 easily when they don't care about contextvars.

On the other hand, *if we accept PEP 576 over PEP 580", C extension
author will use it easily.
So when comparing PEP 576 and 580, understandability for C extension
author is not out of the scope.

Note that I didn't claim how important it is.  I just compare design of
PEP 576 and PEP 580.


>
> First, it's rare for extension types to be callable.
> Second, even if an extension type is callable, implementing PEP 576 or
> 580 is only useful if tp_call overhead is really important.
>
> In any case, just using tp_call will be as good as it was before.
> There is no regression, hence it is incorrect to say that we place an
> additional burden on the shoulders of extension authors.  Yes, they
> can learn an additional PEP to increase tp_call performance; but they
> don't have to.

I agree here.  I have grepped tp_call usage and about to send mail explaining
"Why FASTCALL for tp_call is not so important".


>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>

--
INADA Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>