PEP 707 – A simplified signature for __exit__ and __aexit__
- Author:
- Irit Katriel <irit at python.org>
- Discussions-To:
- Discourse thread
- Status:
- Rejected
- Type:
- Standards Track
- Created:
- 18-Feb-2023
- Python-Version:
- 3.12
- Post-History:
- 02-Mar-2023
- Resolution:
- Discourse message
Rejection Notice
We discussed the PEP and have decided to reject it. Our thinking was the magic and risk of potential breakage didn’t warrant the benefits. We are totally supportive, though, of exploring a potential context manager v2 API or__leave__
.
Abstract
This PEP proposes to make the interpreter accept context managers whose
__exit__()
/ __aexit__()
method
takes only a single exception instance,
while continuing to also support the current (typ, exc, tb)
signature
for backwards compatibility.
This proposal is part of an ongoing effort to remove the redundancy of the 3-item exception representation from the language, a relic of earlier Python versions which now confuses language users while adding complexity and overhead to the interpreter.
The proposed implementation uses introspection, which is tailored to the requirements of this use case. The solution ensures the safety of the new feature by supporting it only in non-ambiguous cases. In particular, any signature that could accept three arguments is assumed to expect them.
Because reliable introspection of callables is not currently possible in Python, the solution proposed here is limited in that only the common types of single-arg callables will be identified as such, while some of the more esoteric ones will continue to be called with three arguments. This imperfect solution was chosen among several imperfect alternatives in the spirit of practicality. It is my hope that the discussion about this PEP will explore the other options and lead us to the best way forward, which may well be to remain with our imperfect status quo.
Motivation
In the past, an exception was represented in many parts of Python by a tuple of three elements: the type of the exception, its value, and its traceback. While there were good reasons for this design at the time, they no longer hold because the type and traceback can now be reliably deduced from the exception instance. Over the last few years we saw several efforts to simplify the representation of exceptions.
Since 3.10 in CPython PR #70577,
the traceback
module’s functions accept either a 3-tuple
as described above, or just an exception instance as a single argument.
Internally, the interpreter no longer represents exceptions as a triplet. This was removed for the handled exception in 3.11 and for the raised exception in 3.12. As a consequence, several APIs that expose the triplet can now be replaced by simpler alternatives:
Legacy API | Alternative | |
---|---|---|
Get handled exception (Python) | sys.exc_info() |
sys.exception() |
Get handled exception (C) | PyErr_GetExcInfo() |
PyErr_GetHandledException() |
Set handled exception (C) | PyErr_SetExcInfo() |
PyErr_SetHandledException() |
Get raised exception (C) | PyErr_Fetch() |
PyErr_GetRaisedException() |
Set raised exception (C) | PyErr_Restore() |
PyErr_SetRaisedException() |
Construct an exception instance from the 3-tuple (C) | PyErr_NormalizeException() |
N/A |
The current proposal is a step in this process, and considers the way forward for one more case in which the 3-tuple representation has leaked to the language. The motivation for all this work is twofold.
Simplify the implementation of the language
The simplification gained by reducing the interpreter’s internal
representation of the handled exception to a single object was significant.
Previously, the interpreter needed to push onto/pop
from the stack three items whenever it did anything with exceptions.
This increased stack depth (adding pressure on caches and registers) and
complicated some of the bytecodes. Reducing this to one item
removed about 100 lines of code
from ceval.c
(the interpreter’s eval loop implementation), and it was later
followed by the removal of the POP_EXCEPT_AND_RERAISE
opcode which has
become simple enough to be replaced by generic stack manipulation instructions. Micro-benchmarks showed
a speedup of about 10% for catching and raising an exception, as well as
for creating generators.
To summarize, removing this redundancy in Python’s internals simplified the
interpreter and made it faster.
The performance of invoking __exit__
/__aexit__
when leaving
a context manager can be also improved by replacing a multi-arg function
call with a single-arg one. Micro-benchmarks showed that entering and exiting
a context manager with single-arg __exit__
is about 13% faster.
Simplify the language itself
One of the reasons for the popularity of Python is its simplicity. The
sys.exc_info()
triplet is cryptic for new learners,
and the redundancy in it is confusing for those who do understand it.
It will take multiple releases to get to a point where we can think of
deprecating sys.exc_info()
. However, we can relatively quickly reach a
stage where new learners do not need to know about it, or about the 3-tuple
representation, at least until they are maintaining legacy code.
Rationale
The only reason to object today to the removal of the last remaining
appearances of the 3-tuple from the language is the concerns about
disruption that such changes can bring. The goal of this PEP is to propose
a safe, gradual and minimally disruptive way to make this change in the
case of __exit__
, and with this to initiate a discussion of our options
for evolving its method signature.
In the case of the traceback
module’s API, evolving the
functions to have a hybrid signature is relatively straightforward and
safe. The functions take one positional and two optional arguments, and
interpret them according to their types. This is safe when sentinels
are used for default values. The signatures of callbacks, which are
defined by the user’s program, are harder to evolve.
The safest option is to make the user explicitly indicate which signature
the callback is expecting, by marking it with an additional attribute or
giving it a different name. For example, we could make the interpreter
look for a __leave__
method on the context manager, and call it with
a single arg if it exists (otherwise, it looks for __exit__
and
continues as it does now). The introspection-based alternative proposed
here intends to make it more convenient for users to write new code,
because they can just use the single-arg version and remain unaware of
the legacy API. However, if the limitations of introspection are found
to be too severe, we should consider an explicit option. Having both
__exit__
and __leave__
around for 5-10 years with similar
functionality is not ideal, but it is an option.
Let us now examine the limitations of the current proposal. It identifies
2-arg python functions and METH_O
C functions as having a single-arg
signature, and assumes that anything else is expecting 3 args. Obviously
it is possible to create false negatives for this heuristic (single-arg
callables that it will not identify). Context managers written in this
way won’t work, they will continue to fail as they do now when their
__exit__
function will be called with three arguments.
I believe that it will not be a problem in practice. First, all working
code will continue to work, so this is a limitation on new code rather
than a problem impacting existing code. Second, exotic callable types are
rarely used for __exit__
and if one is needed, it can always be wrapped
by a plain vanilla method that delegates to the callable. For example, we
can write this:
class C:
__enter__ = lambda self: self
__exit__ = ExoticCallable()
as follows:
class CM:
__enter__ = lambda self: self
_exit = ExoticCallable()
__exit__ = lambda self, exc: CM._exit(exc)
While discussing the real-world impact of the problem in this PEP, it is
worth noting that most __exit__
functions don’t do anything with their
arguments. Typically, a context manager is implemented to ensure that some
cleanup actions take place upon exit. It is rarely appropriate for the
__exit__
function to handle exceptions raised within the context, and
they are typically allowed to propagate out of __exit__
to the calling
function. This means that most __exit__
functions do not access their
arguments at all, and we should take this into account when trying to
assess the impact of different solutions on Python’s userbase.
Specification
A context manager’s __exit__
/__aexit__
method can have a single-arg
signature, in which case it is invoked by the interpreter with the argument
equal to an exception instance or None
:
>>> class C:
... def __enter__(self):
... return self
... def __exit__(self, exc):
... print(f'__exit__ called with: {exc!r}')
...
>>> with C():
... pass
...
__exit__ called with: None
>>> with C():
... 1/0
...
__exit__ called with: ZeroDivisionError('division by zero')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 2, in <module>
ZeroDivisionError: division by zero
If __exit__
/__aexit__
has any other signature, it is invoked with
the 3-tuple (typ, exc, tb)
as happens now:
>>> class C:
... def __enter__(self):
... return self
... def __exit__(self, *exc):
... print(f'__exit__ called with: {exc!r}')
...
>>> with C():
... pass
...
__exit__ called with: (None, None, None)
>>> with C():
... 1/0
...
__exit__ called with: (<class 'ZeroDivisionError'>, ZeroDivisionError('division by zero'), <traceback object at 0x1039cb570>)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 2, in <module>
ZeroDivisionError: division by zero
These __exit__
methods will also be called with a 3-tuple:
def __exit__(self, typ, *exc):
pass
def __exit__(self, typ, exc, tb):
pass
A reference implementation is provided in CPython PR #101995.
When the interpreter reaches the end of the scope of a context manager,
and it is about to call the relevant __exit__
or __aexit__
function,
it instrospects this function to determine whether it is the single-arg
or the legacy 3-arg version. In the draft PR, this introspection is performed
by the is_legacy___exit__
function:
static int is_legacy___exit__(PyObject *exit_func) {
if (PyMethod_Check(exit_func)) {
PyObject *func = PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(exit_func);
if (PyFunction_Check(func)) {
PyCodeObject *code = (PyCodeObject*)PyFunction_GetCode(func);
if (code->co_argcount == 2 && !(code->co_flags & CO_VARARGS)) {
/* Python method that expects self + one more arg */
return false;
}
}
}
else if (PyCFunction_Check(exit_func)) {
if (PyCFunction_GET_FLAGS(exit_func) == METH_O) {
/* C function declared as single-arg */
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
It is important to note that this is not a generic introspection function, but
rather one which is specifically designed for our use case. We know that
exit_func
is an attribute of the context manager class (taken from the
type of the object that provided __enter__
), and it is typically a function.
Furthermore, for this to be useful we need to identify enough single-arg forms,
but not necessarily all of them. What is critical for backwards compatibility is
that we will never misidentify a legacy exit_func
as a single-arg one. So,
for example, __exit__(self, *args)
and __exit__(self, exc_type, *args)
both have the legacy form, even though they could be invoked with one arg.
In summary, an exit_func
will be invoke with a single arg if:
- It is a
PyMethod
withargcount
2
(to countself
) and no vararg, or - it is a
PyCFunction
with theMETH_O
flag.
Note that any performance cost of the introspection can be mitigated via specialization, so it won’t be a problem if we need to make it more sophisticated than this for some reason.
Backwards Compatibility
All context managers that previously worked will continue to work in the
same way because the interpreter will call them with three args whenever
they can accept three args. There may be context managers that previously
did not work because their exit_func
expected one argument, so the call
to __exit__
would have caused a TypeError
exception to be raised,
and now the call would succeed. This could theoretically change the
behaviour of existing code, but it is unlikely to be a problem in practice.
The backwards compatibility concerns will show up in some cases when libraries
try to migrate their context managers from the multi-arg to the single-arg
signature. If __exit__
or __aexit__
is called by any code other than
the interpreter’s eval loop, the introspection does not automatically happen.
For example, this will occur where a context manager is subclassed and its
__exit__
method is called directly from the derived __exit__
. Such
context managers will need to migrate to the single-arg version with their
users, and may choose to offer a parallel API rather than breaking the
existing one. Alternatively, a superclass can stay with the signature
__exit__(self, *args)
, and support both one and three args. Since
most context managers do not use the value of the arguments to __exit__
,
and simply allow the exception to propagate onward, this is likely to be the
common approach.
Security Implications
I am not aware of any.
How to Teach This
The language tutorial will present the single-arg version, and the documentation
for context managers will include a section on the legacy signatures of
__exit__
and __aexit__
.
Reference Implementation
CPython PR #101995 implements the proposal of this PEP.
Rejected Ideas
Support __leave__(self, exc)
It was considered to support a method by a new name, such as __leave__
,
with the new signature. This basically makes the programmer explicitly declare
which signature they are intending to use, and avoid the need for introspection.
Different variations of this idea include different amounts of magic that can
help automate the equivalence between __leave__
and __exit__
. For example,
Mark Shannon suggested
that the type constructor would add a default implementation for each of __exit__
and __leave__
whenever one of them is defined on a class. This default
implementation acts as a trampoline that calls the user’s function. This would
make inheritance work seamlessly, as well as the migration from __exit__
to
__leave__
for particular classes. The interpreter would just need to call
__leave__
, and that would call __exit__
whenever necessary.
While this suggestion has several advantages over the current proposal, it has
two drawbacks. The first is that it adds a new dunder name to the data model,
and we would end up with two dunders that mean the same thing, and only slightly
differ in their signatures. The second is that it would require the migration of
every __exit__
to __leave__
, while with introspection it would not be
necessary to change the many __exit__(*arg)
methods that do not access their
args. While it is not as simple as a grep for __exit__
, it is possible to write
an AST visitor that detects __exit__
methods that can accept multiple arguments,
and which do access them.
Copyright
This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive.
Source: https://github.com/python/peps/blob/main/peps/pep-0707.rst
Last modified: 2023-10-10 15:15:34 GMT