Hi.
With the current cppy code the Python 3.1.1 doc's spam example extension module
looks like this (actual working code):
<code>
#include <progrock/cppx/devsupport/better_experience.h>
#include <progrock/cppy/Module.h>
using namespace progrock;
namespace {
class Spam: public cppy::Module
{
public:
Spam(): cppy::Module( L"spam", L"blåbærsyltetøy er blått" )
{}
PyObject* system( PyObject* args )
{
const char *command;
if( !PyArg_ParseTuple( args, "s", &command ) )
{
return NULL;
}
int const sts = ::system( command );
return Py_BuildValue( "i", sts );
}
};
} // namespace <anon>
CPPY_MODULE_CROUTINE( Spam, system, L"Execute a shell command" )
PyMODINIT_FUNC PyInit_spam()
{
return cppy::safeInit< Spam >();
}
</code>
Issues:
1. Wide string literals OK?
The basic Python API often requires UTF-8 encoded byte strings. With C++
source code encoded using e.g. Windows ANSI Western, string literals with
national characters such as Norwegian ÆØÅ then become gobbledegook or cause
outright failure. I balanced the hypothetical need for string literals with
national characters, versus perceived unnaturalness of wide string literals
for *nix developers, in favor of the former, i.e. L"wide string literals".
Related issue here: in Windows MinGW g++ can not compile utf-8 encoded
source with BOM, while MSVC requires a BOM in order to detect the encoding.
Is L"this" an acceptable decision if you were to use something like cppy?
2. Exception translation OK?
The code within the 'system' member routine could conceivably be reduced to
a single short line by adding some C++ support, but that would require use
of exceptions to report errors. Translating C++ exceptions to Python
exceptions does however add some overhead to every Python -> C++ call.
Currently I do this only for the module initialization code, but should it
be done for every exported method? Or perhaps as user choice? Benefit of
translation e.g. reducing 'system' above to sweet single line. Cost is
setup of try-block (negligible) and exception translation (inefficient).
3. Some unsafety OK?
In 'PyInit_spam' there may be a window of opportunity for client code to
Mess Things Up. Within the cppy::safeInit the C++ module object is created
and creates a Python module object, and if anything fails then the C++ side
frees the Python object. And after PyInit_spam has returned to Python the
cleanup responsibility resides with the Python interpreter: freeing the
Python module object causes the C++ object to be destroyed. But if say the
client code's equivalent of 'PyInit_spam' calls cppy::safeInit and just
discards the result and returns 0 (say) to Python, then it seems to not be
documented whether Python will free the Python module, i.e. possible leak.
4. Threading?
Is it necessary to make singletons/statics thread safe? Or does Python
ensure that no other threads execute while PyInit_spam is called? Can it
be called simultaneously by two or more threads?
5. Reload of interpreter?
My impression from the documentation is that finalization and reinit of the
interpreter is something that an application shouldn't really do, and that
an extension developer need not worry about that happening. Is it so?
Cheers,
- Alf
--
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
