Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > However, I believe the current memoryview implementation does the > wrong thing and only calls them once, and then duplicates the > Py_buffer structures without ever going back to the original objects > (that opinion was based on a quick scan of the code a while back, but > it would fit with the uncomplimentary sentiments Antoine has expressed > in trying to get all this to exhibit some kind of consistency)
Actually, and unless I made a mistake, it does call them twice. (and does the slicing by hand afterwards, which explains part of the hilarity with smalltable and friends :-)) > For point 2, it must be the same pointer. When the PEP says "the > same", I agree it could be taken as ambiguous, but the later reference > to the exporter managing a linked-list of exported views makes it > clear that identity is what matters. The common idiom (including in code not written by me :-)) is currently to use Py_buffer variables allocated on the C stack. Also, we have the C API function PyMemoryView_FromBuffer() which basically mandates that Py_buffer structs can be copied around. And it's a very useful function since it allows to create a memoryview from a chunk of anonymous memory. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
