Author pitrou
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, barry, benjamin.peterson, donmez, giampaolo.rodola, gpolo, loewis, pitrou, teoliphant
Date 2008-08-01.15:46:24
SpamBayes Score 0.0153781
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
Selon "Martin v. Löwis" <>:
> As for making Py_buffer own a reference to the object: what should be
> the semantics for PyObject_ReleaseBuffer? I see the following options:
> - Drop PyObject_ReleaseBuffer
> - make it DECREF the embedded object, whether or not it is the same as
> the object being passed in
> - leave it as-is, and require the caller to DECREF.

I don't know, is there supposed to be a semantic difference between
PyObject_ReleaseBuffer and PyBuffer_Release? If not, I'd say drop it.

Also, I think it's fine if you commit your fix without adding an incref/decref.
In the absence of the designer of the buffer API it is difficult to know what
subtleties should be taken into account when trying to change that API...
Date User Action Args
2008-08-01 15:46:25pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, loewis, barry, teoliphant, amaury.forgeotdarc, giampaolo.rodola, donmez, benjamin.peterson, gpolo
2008-08-01 15:46:25pitroulinkissue3139 messages
2008-08-01 15:46:24pitroucreate