[Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580 (original) (raw)

Petr Viktorin encukou at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 14:33:26 EDT 2018

On 07/05/18 13:59, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:

On 2018-07-05 13:32, INADA Naoki wrote:

Core devs interested in this area is limited resource. I know and unfortunately there is nothing that I can do about that. It would be a pity that PEP 580 (or a variant like PEP 576) is not accepted simply because no core developer cares enough.

Hi, I do care about this, and I'm really sorry I've been mostly silent here. Unfortunately, this is the kind of work that can't be done with a few hours in the evenings, and currently an urgent project is sucking up all the big blocks of time I have :( That project should be done in a month or two, however.

As far as I understand, there are some important topics to discuss.

a. Low level calling convention, including argument parsing API. b. New API for calling objects without argument tuple and dict. c. How more types can support FASTCALL, LOADMETHOD and CALLMETHOD. d. How to reorganize existing builtin types, without breaking stable ABI. Right, that's why I wanted PEP 580 to be only about (c) and nothing else. I made the mistake in PEP 575 of also involving (d). I still don't understand why we must finish (a) before we can even start discussing (c). Reference implementation helps discussion. METHFASTCALL and argument parsing for METHFASTCALL is already implemented in CPython. Not in documented public functions, but the implementation exists. And PEP 580 also has a reference implementation: https://github.com/jdemeyer/cpython/tree/pep580 Jeroen.

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/encukou%40gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list