[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Inada Naoki added the comment: New changeset 151b91dfd21a100ecb1eba9e293c0a8695bf3bf5 by Inada Naoki (Jeroen Demeyer) in branch 'master': bpo-29548: deprecate PyEval_Call* functions (GH-14804) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/151b91dfd21a100ecb1eba9e293c0a8695bf3bf5 --

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Change by Jeroen Demeyer : -- pull_requests: +14600 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/14804 ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Inada Naoki added the comment: New changeset 1dbd084f1f68d7293718b663df675cfbd0c65712 by Inada Naoki (Jeroen Demeyer) in branch 'master': bpo-29548: no longer use PyEval_Call* functions (GH-14683) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/1dbd084f1f68d7293718b663df675cfbd0c65712 --

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Inada Naoki added the comment: FYI, PyEval_CallFunction and PyEval_CallMethod doesn't respect Py_SSIZE_T_CLEAN. So runtime warning is raised when they are used with "#" format. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Jeroen Demeyer added the comment: I understand the arguments for not removing these functions. However, I still think that we should deprecate them but without planning in advance when they should be removed. Victor said that we should document these functions as "please don't use them", and

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Change by Jeroen Demeyer : -- pull_requests: +14488 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/14683 ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

INADA Naoki added the comment: New changeset aa289a59ff6398110e1122877c073c9354ee53db by INADA Naoki in branch 'master': bpo-29548: Recommend PyObject_Call APIs over PyEval_Call APIs. (GH-75) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/aa289a59ff6398110e1122877c073c9354ee53db -- ___

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Changes by INADA Naoki : -- dependencies: -Document PyEval_Call* functions resolution: -> fixed stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Changes by Ezio Melotti : -- Removed message: http://bugs.python.org/msg288059 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing lis

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Nick Coghlan added the comment: New changeset 72dccde884d89586b0cafd990675b7e21720a81f by GitHub in branch 'ncoghlan-devguide-link': bpo-29548: Fix some inefficient call API usage (GH-97) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/72dccde884d89586b0cafd990675b7e21720a81f -- nosy: +ncogh

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

INADA Naoki added the comment: New changeset 72dccde884d89586b0cafd990675b7e21720a81f by GitHub in branch 'master': bpo-29548: Fix some inefficient call API usage (GH-97) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/72dccde884d89586b0cafd990675b7e21720a81f --

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

STINNER Victor added the comment: > # builtin min and max doesn't support FASTCALL > (...): 1.16x slower (+16%) Hum, the slowdown is not negligible, even if functools.reduce() is rarely used. Do you think that it would be insane to have two code paths instead? * New FASTCALL path if func supor

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Changes by INADA Naoki : -- pull_requests: +82 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.pyt

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

STINNER Victor added the comment: "I think first at all PyEval_Call* functions should be documented (issue11165). The documentation should recommend to use corresponding PyObject_Call* functions (...)" I *now* agree :-) -- title: Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs -

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I think first at all PyEval_Call* functions should be documented (issue11165). The documentation should recommend to use corresponding PyObject_Call* functions and explicitly describe the difference between PyEval_Call* and PyObject_Call* APIs. Few releases

[issue29548] Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs

INADA Naoki added the comment: I've stopped to deprecating. changed issue title. -- title: deprecate PyEval_Call*() functions. -> Recommend PyObject_Call* APIs over PyEval_Call*() APIs ___ Python tracker ___