Skip to content

Conversation

@ammaraskar
Copy link
Member

@ammaraskarammaraskar 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
MemberAuthor

@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

@isidenticalisidentical 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
MemberAuthor

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

@pablogsalpablogsal 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
MemberAuthor

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 :)

ammaraskarand others added 3 commits July 12, 2021 16:29
Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo <Pablogsal@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Batuhan Taskaya <batuhanosmantaskaya@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Ammar Askar <ammar@ammaraskar.com>
@ammaraskar
Copy link
MemberAuthor

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
MemberAuthor

Ready to go 🚀

Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo Salgado <Pablogsal@gmail.com>
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 👍

ammaraskarand others added 2 commits July 12, 2021 19:54
Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo Salgado <Pablogsal@gmail.com>
@pablogsalpablogsal merged commit 9c3eaf8 into python:mainJul 13, 2021
@ammaraskarammaraskar deleted the pep657-docs branch July 13, 2021 04:20
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

docsDocumentation in the Doc dir

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@ammaraskar@isidentical@pablogsal@the-knights-who-say-ni@bedevere-bot