Stefan Krah <stefan-use...@bytereef.org> added the comment:
[Nick]
> Another idea we may want to revisit is the PyManagedBuffer concept,
> which would be a true PyObject that existed solely to simplify sharing
> of Py_buffer structs.
> If memoryview used such an object internally, then copying and slicing
> would be quite simple - just INCREF the managed buffer instance without
> letting the original source object know anything was going on.
I think this is the nicest solution since memoryview would then always
have a proper base object. Do I understand correctly that PyManagedBuffer
should only handle 1-dimensional objects?
There is an additional point about slicing and sub-views:
I think slicing (esp. multidimensional slicing) would be greatly simplified
if we added a requirement for the *exporting* object to provide a sliced
view. (The same applies to sub-views, also see source comments below [1]).
For example, an exporting object could provide a sliced view by adding
a getslicedbufferproc to PyBufferProcs:
int PyObject_GetSlicedBuffer(PyObject *obj, Py_buffer *view, int flags,
PyObject *key);
By "sliced view" I mean that the exporting object changes buf, shape and
strides. There are several advantages:
o The invariant that all allocated memory in the buffer belongs
to the exporting object remains intact.
o The responsibility for creating correct multidimensional sliced views
is shifted to the implementor of the exporting object.
[1] memoryobject.c:
/* XXX There should be an API to create a subbuffer */
/* XXX: This needs to be fixed so it actually returns a sub-view */
----------
nosy: +skrah
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue10181>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
