Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-597

Update return value policy text in Pybind11 Style Guide

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      I'd like to propose one major and two minor changes to the pybind11 style guide, all related to the recommendation on return value policies. These changes are to address special cases that came up when writing the pybind11 wrappers for DM-17981.

      Major change

      I propose that we add the following paragraph between "in C++ than Python)." and "In rare cases":

      When a C++ method on a container/collection returns non-const references or pointers to the collection's elements, it MAY use a policy other than reference_internal. reference_internal may be unsafe in this case because Python could keep a reference to a collection element after it was deleted, leading to a segmentation fault. Developers should choose a return value policy appropriate for the properties of the collection and the expected way it will be used from Python (e.g., whether elements need to be modified in-place).

      Minor change 1

      I propose that the phrases "(smart) pointer" in the current text have their parentheses removed, and the phrase "pointers" in the proposed new paragraph above be qualified with "smart pointers". According to the pybind11 documentation, using the automatic policy with a function that returns a C-style (raw) pointer will cause pybind11 to assume the pointer points to a new object that needs to be managed, which would be disastrous if the pointer actually points to an already-managed internal object.

      We discussed this issue on #dm-pybind11 and concluded that we never use raw pointers, so I don't think we need new text to cover that case. We just need to not imply that automatic would be safe if somebody did return a raw pointer.

      Minor change 2

      I propose that the phrases "data member" in the current text be replaced with "internal state". The current wording suggests that it matters whether the reference is to a direct member (aka field, attribute, etc.) of the class or to state held more indirectly (e.g., as part of a subobject). However, such a distinction is an implementation detail that may change with refactoring, and, more importantly, the behavior of an internal reference/pointer is exactly the same in both cases.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                krzys Krzysztof Findeisen
                Reporter:
                krzys Krzysztof Findeisen
                Watchers:
                Jim Bosch, John Parejko, Kian-Tat Lim, Krzysztof Findeisen, Russell Owen
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End:

                  Summary Panel