Author ncoghlan
Recipients kermode, loewis, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, rupole, teoliphant
Date 2011-01-05.16:30:52
SpamBayes Score 1.35139e-10
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
PEP 3118 makes it clear that the underlying object should see *two* pairs of calls to the buffer methods:

Even if we ignore the undocumented "obj" field, the target object needs to ensure the exported buffer remains valid as long as any memory views are referencing it. The only way to do that is to treat GetBuffer/ReleaseBuffer as the moral equivalent of INCREF/DECREF.

However, I believe the current memoryview implementation does the wrong thing and only calls them once, and then duplicates the Py_buffer structures without ever going back to the original objects (that opinion was based on a quick scan of the code a while back, but it would fit with the uncomplimentary sentiments Antoine has expressed in trying to get all this to exhibit some kind of consistency)

For point 2, it must be the same pointer. When the PEP says "the same", I agree it could be taken as ambiguous, but the later reference to the exporter managing a linked-list of exported views makes it clear that identity is what matters.

As far as I can see, some of things in the PEP were found to be a PITA in practice (such as every consumer of the API having to implement the equivalent of the "base" attribute in the original memoryview design), so Travis changed them. Unfortunately, those changes never made it back into the protocol documentation, leading to the current confusion.
Date User Action Args
2011-01-05 16:30:57ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, loewis, teoliphant, mark.dickinson, rupole, kermode, pitrou
2011-01-05 16:30:57ncoghlansetmessageid: <>
2011-01-05 16:30:52ncoghlanlinkissue10181 messages
2011-01-05 16:30:52ncoghlancreate