On May 5, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc > <amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote: >> 2011/5/5 Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>: >>> Seems you're in agreement with this. IMO when references are borrowed >>> it is not very interesting. The interesting thing is when calling a >>> function *steals* a reference. The other important thing to know is >>> whether the caller ends up owning the return value (if it is an >>> object) or not. I *think* you can tell the latter from the +1 for the >>> return value; but the former (whether it steals a reference) is >>> unclear from the data given. There's even an XXX comment about this in >>> the file: >>> >>> # XXX NOTE: the 0/+1/-1 refcount information for arguments is >>> # confusing! Much more useful would be to indicate whether the >>> # function "steals" a reference to the argument or not. Take for >>> # example PyList_SetItem(list, i, item). This lists as a 0 change for >>> # both the list and the item arguments. However, in fact it steals a >>> # reference to the item argument! >> >> Should we change this file then? >> And only list functions that don't follow the usual conventions. >> >> But I'm sure that there are external tools which already use refcounts.dat >> in its present format. > > Maybe we can *add* a column with the desired information? +1 Raymond
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4