➜
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.
Created on 2019-12-29 13:33 by ncoghlan, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Pull Requests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| URL | Status | Linked | Edit |
| PR 18220 | merged | nanjekyejoannah, 2020-01-27 22:23 | |
| PR 18246 | merged | miss-islington, 2020-01-29 11:21 | |
| Messages (6) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg358988 - (view) | Author: Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan) *  |
Date: 2019-12-29 13:33 | |
The documentation for PyList_SetItem is explicit that it steals a reference to the passed in value, and drops the reference for any existing entry: https://docs.python.org/3.3/c-api/list.html?highlight=m#PyList_SetItem The documentation for PyDict_SetItem leaves the semantics unspecified, forcing the reader to either make assumptions, or else go read the source code (as was done for the SO answer at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40700251/reference-counting-using-pydict-setitemstring) Since the default assumption is actually correct, I don't think a Sphinx note is warranted, but an extra explicit sentence would be helpful. PySequence_SetItem has such a sentence already: "This function does *not* steal a reference to v." My suggestion is that we also add that sentence to the documentation for: * PyObject_SetItem * PyMapping_SetItemString * PyDict_SetItem * PyDict_SetItemString |
|||
| msg359008 - (view) | Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * |
Date: 2019-12-29 21:44 | |
The documentation for PyList_SetItem is explicit because its behavior is an exception from common rule and differs from PyList_SET_ITEM, so both should be documented explicitly. |
|||
| msg359018 - (view) | Author: Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2019-12-30 04:58 | |
Right, that's why I don't think the other "*SetItem*" operations should get a Sphinx note - just a sentence, as was already done for PySequence_SetItem. If it weren't for PyList_SetItem being different, none of the others would need the clarification at all. |
|||
| msg360953 - (view) | Author: Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2020-01-29 11:21 | |
New changeset e1e80002e28e1055f399a20918c49d50d093709e by Joannah Nanjekye in branch 'master': bpo-39153: Clarify C API *SetItem refcounting semantics (GH-18220) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/e1e80002e28e1055f399a20918c49d50d093709e |
|||
| msg360955 - (view) | Author: miss-islington (miss-islington) | Date: 2020-01-29 11:29 | |
New changeset 526523c19322169a7f7507d9da291053df979412 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.8': bpo-39153: Clarify C API *SetItem refcounting semantics (GH-18220) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/526523c19322169a7f7507d9da291053df979412 |
|||
| msg361074 - (view) | Author: Dong-hee Na (corona10) * |
Date: 2020-01-30 15:49 | |
@nanjekyejoannah Thanks for the update :) |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:59:24 | admin | set | github: 83334 |
| 2020-01-30 15:49:50 | corona10 | set | status: open -> closed nosy: + corona10 messages: + msg361074 resolution: fixed stage: patch review -> resolved |
| 2020-01-29 11:29:42 | miss-islington | set | nosy:
+ miss-islington messages: + msg360955 |
| 2020-01-29 11:21:20 | miss-islington | set | pull_requests: + pull_request17625 |
| 2020-01-29 11:21:17 | ncoghlan | set | messages: + msg360953 |
| 2020-01-27 22:23:22 | nanjekyejoannah | set | keywords:
+ patch stage: needs patch -> patch review pull_requests: + pull_request17600 |
| 2019-12-30 04:58:34 | ncoghlan | set | messages: + msg359018 |
| 2019-12-29 21:44:40 | serhiy.storchaka | set | nosy:
+ serhiy.storchaka messages: + msg359008 |
| 2019-12-29 13:34:20 | ncoghlan | set | nosy:
+ docs@python versions: + Python 3.8, Python 3.9 assignee: docs@python components: + Documentation type: enhancement stage: needs patch |
| 2019-12-29 13:33:59 | ncoghlan | create | |