On 27.04.16 16:08, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 27 April 2016 at 17:14, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps:
1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on
failure.
I'd suggest a variant on this that more closely matches the
PyList_SetItem and PyTuple_SetItem cases: PyModule_SetAttrString
The first two match the signature of PySequence_SetItem, but steal the
reference instead of making a new one, and the same relationship would
exist between PyObject_SetAttrString and the new
PyModule_SetAttrString.
I think it is better to have relation with PyModule_AddIntConstant() etc
than with PyObject_SetAttrString.
My patch doesn't introduce new public function, but changes the behavior
of the old function. This needs minimal changes to user code that mostly
use PyModule_AddObject() incorrectly (not blaming authors).
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
