S Murthy added the comment:
Docstring for `Instruction` should be more precise. ATM the description of
`starts_line` is
line started by this opcode (if any), otherwise None
I think "source line started ..." would be a bit more precise an
New submission from S Murthy :
I note that on disassembling a piece of source code (via source strings or code
objects) the corresponding sequence of bytecode instruction objects
(https://docs.python.org/3/library/dis.html#dis.Instruction) do not always have
the `starts_line` attribute set
S Murthy added the comment:
Yes, I know that a method body may contain more than just the return statement
- I was referrring to the byte code for the method def f(x): return x**2.
I don't think the output of dis.dis is correct here for the source string of f
- it doesn't make
S Murthy added the comment:
BTW how else are methods/functions are created in Python except via def?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue39
S Murthy added the comment:
@steven.daprano In this case, the method f was created by via def. And calling
dis.dis(s) where s is the source code of f (say s = inspect.getsource(f)) shows
the bytecode both for the header and the body, as is clear enough from the
example I first posted
New submission from S Murthy :
I am using the dis module to look at source (and logical) lines of code vs
corresponding bytecode instructions. I am bit confused by the output of dis.dis
when disassembling a given method vs the corresponding source string, e.g.
>>> def f(x): re
