Skip to content

bpo-43950: Add documentation for PEP-657 #27047

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Jul 13, 2021
Merged

Conversation

ammaraskar
Copy link
Member

@ammaraskar ammaraskar commented Jul 6, 2021

First pass at documenting the feature.

https://bugs.python.org/issue43950

@isidentical
Copy link
Member

@ammaraskar can we separate co_positions() from traceback stuff? I think they are two separate features, and one masking the other right now might make users miss the co_positions() API.

@isidentical
Copy link
Member

Thanks @ammaraskar for taking the first pass on documentation. I think overall it looks great!

@ammaraskar
Copy link
Member Author

@ammaraskar can we separate co_positions() from traceback stuff? I think they are two separate features, and one masking the other right now might make users miss the co_positions() API.

Added a separate section for this to make it harder to miss.

Copy link
Member

@isidentical isidentical left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@ammaraskar
Copy link
Member Author

Rebased and squashed with the CPython specific column limit removed. Hopefully the documentation conveys that you should always be prepared to handle None with the API :)

Anything else to address here?

Copy link
Member

@pablogsal pablogsal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's focus next on finishing the specialized formats so the docs are up to date with that

@ammaraskar
Copy link
Member Author

Updated the existing examples for #27037 but maybe we should put an example of a complicated arithmetic expression to show off that specialization as well?

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member

Updated the existing examples for #27037 but maybe we should put an example of a complicated arithmetic expression to show off that specialization as well?

Yeah, I want to also prepare in a separate PR some mini tutorial/example on how to use the Python fields.

We should also document "how to read the new tracebacks", especially for the specializations. For that, we should ask the one and only @willingc for advice on what's the best way to document it and where :)

@ammaraskar
Copy link
Member Author

Added an example for binary operations.

We should also document "how to read the new tracebacks"

Definitely, both of those sound good for follow-up docs. Maybe we can ask the overarching docs working group and specifically cc Carol in for help :)

@ammaraskar
Copy link
Member Author

Ready to go 🚀

Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo Salgado <[email protected]>
Comment on lines 1032 to 1036
- Running the interpreter with ``-X no_debug_ranges``.
- Loading a pyc file compiled while using ``-X no_debug_ranges``.
- Position tuples corresponding to artificial instructions.
- Line and column numbers that can't be represented due to
implementation specific limitations.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice 👍

@pablogsal pablogsal merged commit 9c3eaf8 into python:main Jul 13, 2021
@ammaraskar ammaraskar deleted the pep657-docs branch July 13, 2021 04:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants