New submission from Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>:
The documentation for PyList_SetItem is explicit that it steals a reference to the passed in value, and drops the reference for any existing entry: https://docs.python.org/3.3/c-api/list.html?highlight=m#PyList_SetItem The documentation for PyDict_SetItem leaves the semantics unspecified, forcing the reader to either make assumptions, or else go read the source code (as was done for the SO answer at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40700251/reference-counting-using-pydict-setitemstring) Since the default assumption is actually correct, I don't think a Sphinx note is warranted, but an extra explicit sentence would be helpful. PySequence_SetItem has such a sentence already: "This function does *not* steal a reference to v." My suggestion is that we also add that sentence to the documentation for: * PyObject_SetItem * PyMapping_SetItemString * PyDict_SetItem * PyDict_SetItemString ---------- messages: 358988 nosy: ncoghlan priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Clarify refcounting semantics of PyDict_SetItem[String] _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39153> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
