[Python-Dev] Should I postpone PEP 558 (locals() semantics) to Python 3.9?
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Thu May 30 20:17:44 EDT 2019
Given the flurry of discussion that happened this week, and that the PR
switching the PEP to use independent snapshots hasn't even been landed, I'm
skeptical that it's wise to attempt to get this in before beta 1 even if
you were to resolve the segfaults.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:24 PM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> The reference implementation for PEP 558 (my attempt to fix the
> interaction between tracing functions and closure variables) is currently
> segfaulting somewhere deep in the garbage collector, and I've found that
> there's an issue with the PyEval_GetLocals() API returning a borrowed
> reference that means I need to tweak the proposed C API a bit such that
> PyEval_GetLocals() returns the proxy at function scope, and we add a new
> PyEval_GetPyLocals() that matches the locals() builtin.
> I don't *want* to postpone this to Python 3.9, but there turned out to be
> more remaining work than I thought there was to get this ready for
> inclusion in beta 1.
> I'll try to get the C API design details sorted today, but the segfault is
> mystifying me, and prevents the option of putting the core implementation
> in place for b1, and tidying up the documentation and comments for b2.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
*Pronouns: he/him/his **(why is my pronoun here?)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev