tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset

[jdemeyer]

BPO	36995
Nosy	@encukou, @markshannon, @jdemeyer, @pablogsal
PRs	bpo-36974: tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset and tp_reserved -> tp_as_async #13464

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2019-05-22.05:14:28.312>
created_at = <Date 2019-05-21.14:53:24.395>
labels = ['interpreter-core', '3.8']
title = 'tp_print -> tp_vectorcall_offset'
updated_at = <Date 2019-05-22.05:14:28.311>
user = 'https://github.com/jdemeyer'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2019-05-22.05:14:28.311>
actor = 'jdemeyer'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2019-05-22.05:14:28.312>
closer = 'jdemeyer'
components = ['Interpreter Core']
creation = <Date 2019-05-21.14:53:24.395>
creator = 'jdemeyer'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 36995
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['343061', '343065', '343071', '343147']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['petr.viktorin', 'Mark.Shannon', 'jdemeyer', 'pablogsal']
pr_nums = ['13464']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'duplicate'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue36995'
versions = ['Python 3.8']

[jdemeyer]

If PEP-590 is accepted: in code comments, replace tp_print by tp_vectorcall_offset and (while we're at it) tp_reserved by tp_as_async.

[encukou]

All these issues are quite confusing. If PEP-590 is accepted, all of it will need to be implemented. Why open separate issues for all the parts?

[pablogsal]

I would suggest centralizing all PRs on the same issue as Petr is indicating to reduce the noise, especially before the PEP is accepted.

[jdemeyer]

I see what you mean now. One bpo issue with many pull requests. I was following the CPython policy that every pull request needed an issue, but it didn't occur to me to put multiple independent PRs on one issue.