Skip to content
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

Add new trait IntoPyObject #2316

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

davidhewitt
Copy link
Member

This is throwing out a concept that I've been pondering for a while to progress with the design of the to-python conversion traits.

It replaces IntoPy<T> generic trait with a trait IntoPyObject which has an associated type defined as follows:

pub trait IntoPyObject: Sized {
    type Target;

    /// Converts to the known target Python type.
    fn into_py(self, py: Python<'_>) -> Py<Self::Target>;

    /// Converts to a generic Python type. Equivalent to `self.into_py().into()`.
    fn into_object(self, py: Python<'_>) -> PyObject;
}

The names are intended to line up with the ToPyObject trait which has the to_object method. We could also have TryIntoPyObject trait, potentially, with a similar design.

The advantages I see of doing this:

  • Users can call into_py() and get Py<T> rather than Py<PyAny>, helping avoid to need an immediate cast to work with the Python object.
  • Avoids inference errors caused when multiple implementations of IntoPy<T> exist for a given type.
  • Opens the way for us to have #[derive(IntoPyObject)].

Copy link
Member Author

@davidhewitt davidhewitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some compatibility comments before I push this too far, input from others very much welcomed!

@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ fn test_buffer_referenced() {
let input = vec![b' ', b'2', b'3'];
let gil = Python::acquire_gil();
let py = gil.python();
let instance: PyObject = TestBufferClass {
let instance = TestBufferClass {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Users migrating might have to remove a number of : PyObject annotations like this.

@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ fn test_polymorphic_container_does_not_accept_other_types() {

let setattr = |value: PyObject| p.as_ref(py).setattr("inner", value);

assert!(setattr(1i32.into_py(py)).is_err());
assert!(setattr(1i32.into_object(py)).is_err());
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Users migrating might have to replace into_py with into_object where they to want PyObject output. I'm not sure how annoying this might be.

Worst case I think we instruct users to replace all .into_py() with .into_object(), and then they can case-by-case change back to into_py() where the better typing is helpful.

@@ -431,6 +534,13 @@ impl IntoPy<Py<PyTuple>> for () {
}
}

impl IntoPyObject for () {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note that IntoPy<PyObject> for () becomes None, and IntoPy<Py<PyTuple>> becomes ().

IMO this is a bit annoying, and ().into_py() should be an empty tuple

However without specialization, we need to do some fudging in the macros to fix the () case as a #[pyfunction] return value. I'm pretty sure I know how to do this.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To me, it would seem preferable to fix the special case of the type of the return value of functions that do not return anything instead of ingraining this into the conversion traits.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@adamreichold I think that we're saying the same thing? At the moment the conversion traits encode this special case, however really this should just be part of the #[pyfunction] / #[pymethods] macro. (With min_specialization it could probably be part of the IntoPyCallbackOutput trait in the future, however I won't hold my breath.)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, certainly. I just wanted to echo

IMO this is a bit annoying, and ().into_py() should be an empty tuple

which sounded like you did not fully convince yourself yet.

@birkenfeld
Copy link
Member

I like it a lot. I agree that the () -> None transform only should be made for function returns.

fn into_py(self, py: Python<'_>) -> Py<Self::Target>;

/// Performs the conversion.
fn into_object(self, py: Python<'_>) -> PyObject {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
fn into_object(self, py: Python<'_>) -> PyObject {
fn into_object(self, py: Python<'_>) -> Py<PyAny> {

I think this communicates the difference between these methods better.

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2023
2882: inspect: gate behind `experimental-inspect` feature r=davidhewitt a=davidhewitt

This is the last thing I want to do before preparing 0.18 release.

The `pyo3::inspect` functionality looks useful as a first step towards #2454. However, we don't actually make use of this anywhere within PyO3 yet (we could probably use it for better error messages). I think we also have open questions about the traits which I'd like to resolve before committing to these additional APIs. (For example, this PR adds `IntoPy::type_output`, which seems potentially misplaced to me, the `type_output` function probably wants to be on a non-generic trait e.g. `ToPyObject` or maybe #2316.) 

As such, I propose putting these APIs behind an `experimental-inspect` feature gate for now, and invite users who find them useful to contribute a finished-off design.

Co-authored-by: David Hewitt <[email protected]>
@davidhewitt
Copy link
Member Author

Closing as this is very outdated and #4041 is an attempt to kickstart future discussion in this space.

@davidhewitt davidhewitt closed this Apr 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants