This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author tim.peters
Recipients Thomas Wouters, gregory.p.smith, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, twouters, vstinner
Date 2017-03-30.05:26:31
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1490851591.55.0.193286092508.issue29941@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I think we should certainly support asserts regardless of whether Py_DEBUG is in force (although Py_DEBUG should imply asserts run too).

And I wish you had stuck to just that much ;-)  The argument against, e.g., 'assert(!PyErr_Occurred())', seems exceedingly weak.  An `assert()` is to catch things that are never supposed to happen.  It's an error in the implementation if such a thing ever does happen.  But whether that error is in the Pytnon core or an external C extension is a distinction that only matters to assigning blame - it's "an error" all the same.  It's nothing but good to catch errors ASAP.

Where I draw a hard distinction between assertions and Py_DEBUG is along the "expensive?" axis.  The more assertions the merrier, but they better be cheap (and `PyErr_Occurred()` is pretty cheap).  
Py_DEBUG does all sorts of stuff  that's expensive and intrusive - that's for heavy duty verification.

So, to me, 'assert(!PyErr_Occurred())' is fine - it's cheap and catches an error at a point where catching it is possible.  Finding the true cause for why the error is set may be arbitrarily more expensive, so _that_ code belongs under Py_DEBUG.  Except there is no general way to do that, so no such code exists ;-)
History
Date User Action Args
2017-03-30 05:26:31tim.peterssetrecipients: + tim.peters, twouters, gregory.p.smith, vstinner, serhiy.storchaka, Thomas Wouters
2017-03-30 05:26:31tim.peterssetmessageid: <1490851591.55.0.193286092508.issue29941@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-03-30 05:26:31tim.peterslinkissue29941 messages
2017-03-30 05:26:31tim.peterscreate