-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 779
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
support Bound
for classmethod
and pass_module
#3831
support Bound
for classmethod
and pass_module
#3831
Conversation
@@ -179,11 +179,11 @@ error: macros cannot be used as items in `#[pymethods]` impl blocks | |||
197 | macro_invocation!(); | |||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |||
|
|||
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: From<&PyType>` is not satisfied | |||
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: From<BoundRef<'_, '_, PyType>>` is not satisfied |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The error message is notably worse than it was before, but I think once we remove the GIL Ref compatibility and go back to just &Bound<PyType>
it improves. I can live with it being a bit janky for a couple of releases. If reviewers feel strongly that we should try to make this nicer I can experiment at cost of making the implementation more complex.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(One upside of a more complex implementation is that I might be able to emit deprecation warnings for using GIL Refs in these positions.)
src/instance.rs
Outdated
@@ -138,6 +138,14 @@ impl<'py> Bound<'py, PyAny> { | |||
) -> PyResult<Self> { | |||
Py::from_owned_ptr_or_err(py, ptr).map(|obj| Self(py, ManuallyDrop::new(obj))) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
#[inline] | |||
pub(crate) unsafe fn from_ref_to_ptr<'a>( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really get this name. How about from_borrowed_ptr
?
Same on BoundRef
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ugh, I couldn't work out a good name either. I didn't feel borrowed
is quite right here because that's got a very specific meaning in the Python C API to refer to a pointer return value which doesn't carry ownership.
How about just from_raw
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(I think this API will remain crate-private for the foreseeable future, so the name doesn't have to be perfect 😄)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree, since this is internal its not super important. I'm also fine with from_raw
. I think I also get now that you were intending to reference this (unusual) construct & *mut _
, but yesterday i read it like it was turning a reference into a pointer, while it was doing kind of the opposite 🙈
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I see why the from_x_to_y
bit reads wrong.
On reflection I think Bound::from_raw
isn't quite the right name for this API. I still can't think of anything better. from_shared_ref_ptr
? from_borrow_on_raw_pointer
? from_ptr_shared_ref
?
I'm kinda ok with a clumsy name here given this is an internal API really only intended to give a lifetime 'a
in &'a Bound<'_, PyAny>
.
I think of the options I wrote above, from_ptr_shared_ref
might make the most sense to me. Any of those which you like?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think I have a particular preference among these. If i had to pick i would probably choose between from_shared_ref_ptr
and from_ptr_shared_ref
. So I'm fine with your preference. Another option that came to my mind was something like ref_from_ptr
or shared_from_ptr
, but I dont't feel strongly about these either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I quite like ref_from_ptr
, let's go with that 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good 👍
Thanks for the review! I decided to add a doc to |
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #3831 will degrade performances by 15.02%Comparing Summary
Benchmarks breakdown
|
This is a tidied-up copy of #3744 without any attempts to change
#[pymodule]
.This PR focuses on updating
#[classmethod]
and#[pyfunction(pass_module)]
to accept&Bound<PyType>
and&Bound<PyModule>
respectively. It allows them to accept GIL Refs for backwards compatibility.We were already using
Into
for these conversions, so I created a new helper typeBoundRef(&Bound<T>)
which implements theInto
conversions for&T
,&Bound<T>
, andPy<T>
. The reason for the new helper type was because I didn't want to supportFrom<&Bound<T>> for &T
.