Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Selon "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As for making Py_buffer own a reference to the object: what should be > the semantics for PyObject_ReleaseBuffer? I see the following options: > - Drop PyObject_ReleaseBuffer > - make it DECREF the embedded object, whether or not it is the same as > the object being passed in > - leave it as-is, and require the caller to DECREF.
I don't know, is there supposed to be a semantic difference between PyObject_ReleaseBuffer and PyBuffer_Release? If not, I'd say drop it. Also, I think it's fine if you commit your fix without adding an incref/decref. In the absence of the designer of the buffer API it is difficult to know what subtleties should be taken into account when trying to change that API... _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3139> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
