2011/7/8 mark florisson <markflorisso...@gmail.com> > On 7 July 2011 22:15, Vitja Makarov <vitja.maka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2011/7/7 mark florisson <markflorisso...@gmail.com> > >> > >> On 6 July 2011 10:01, Vitja Makarov <vitja.maka...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de>: > >> >> Vitja Makarov, 06.07.2011 09:05: > >> >>> > >> >>> 2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel<stefan...@behnel.de>: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Stefan Behnel, 05.07.2011 10:04: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Vitja Makarov, 05.07.2011 09:17: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> 2011/7/5 Stefan Behnel: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Vitja Makarov, 05.07.2011 08:21: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> I was thinking about implementing new super() with no > arguments. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> http://trac.cython.org/cython_trac/ticket/696 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> The problem is where to store __class__, I see two options > here: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> 1. Add func_class member to CyFunction, this way __class__ will > >> >>>>>>>> be > >> >>>>>>>> private and not visible for inner functions: > >> >>>>>>>> 2. Put it into closure > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> The second option has the advantage of requiring the field only > >> >>>>>>> when > >> >>>>>>> super() > >> >>>>>>> is used, whereas the first impacts all functions. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I would expect that programs commonly have a lot more functions > >> >>>>>>> than > >> >>>>>>> specifically methods that use a no-argument call to super(), so > >> >>>>>>> this > >> >>>>>>> may > >> >>>>>>> make a difference. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> So, now classes are created the following way: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> class_dict = {} > >> >>>>>> class_dict.foo = foo_func > >> >>>>>> class = CreateClass(class_dict) > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> So after class is created I should check its dict for CyFunction > >> >>>>>> members (maybe only ones that actually require __class__) > >> >>>>>> and set __class__: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> for value in class.__dict__.itervalues(): > >> >>>>>> if isinstance(value, CyFunction) and value.func_class is > WantClass: > >> >>>>>> value.func_class = class > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Btw, first way requires cyfunction signature change, it would > >> >>>>>> accept > >> >>>>>> cyfunction object as first argument. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We currently pass the binding (i.e. owning) object, right? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So, how would this work for methods? We need to pass the 'self' > >> >>>> object > >> >>>> there, which the CyFunction doesn't know. If anything, it only > knows > >> >>>> the > >> >>>> class it was defined in, which doesn't help here. > >> >>> > >> >>> From PEP: "super() is equivalent to: super(__class__,<firstarg>)" > >> >> > >> >> I wasn't speaking of super(). What I meant, was: how do we pass > 'self' > >> >> when > >> >> we pass the CyFunction object as the first argument? > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Oh, ok. Now we pass closure or nothing in self. So method's self is > >> > passed via tuple. > >> > Instancemethod do this for us. Now CyFucntion uses PyCFunction_Call we > >> > can override this and change signature of cyfunction to: > >> > > >> > PyObject func(CyFunction *func, PyObject *self, PyObject *args, > >> > PyObject *kwargs); > >> > > >> > This way we should implement new instancemethod type. > >> > >> Would it be easier to make scope objects attributes of functions? Then > >> you could still utilize PyCFunction_Call without needing to check the > >> argument flags and such right? > >> > > > > Sure, scope object is already functions attribute now it's stored inside > > self. > > But, instancemethods desc_get builds new args tuple with self as first > > element. > > We can implement cython version of instance method and change method > > signature a little bit. > > Right, and you pass it in as the first argument to the C function. > However, if you want to change the signature, you have to override > PyCFunction_Call, which, if I'm not mistaken, means you will have to > interpret the flags from the PyMethodDef and call the C function in > the right way (e.g. with or without the args tuple and kwargs) and > check if it's being called correctly. If you leave it as an attribute > of the function, you can pass in the function and access the scope > object from the function object in the closure C function. So I think > changing the signature might be a bit harder? > > Yes, but how to handle instantmethods self arg? We can't store it inside function object as it is different for each instance.
btw I've already moved pycyfunction_call into cython.. -- vitja.
_______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
