GeezerVison

Doesn't _PyInterpreterFrame, need a public name too? Otherwise you can't quite use the functions without private API.

To implement an eval function, you should likely use the internal C API (pycore_interpframe.h) to access frame members, you're right. I don't want to add _PyInterpreterFrame structure members to the PyUnstable API, it's too unstable :-D I prefer to leave it in the internal C API.

I don't think that it's worth it to expose struct _PyInterpreterFrame* type in the PyUnstable API. What do you think?

These functions are rather useless without making _PyInterpreterFrame public. At least should be an opaque type, with a function to upgrade it to the full PyFrameObject.

The API changed in Python 3.11 to take a _PyInterpreterFrame* instead of a PyFrameObject*. It's basically only used by PyTorch Dynamo which already uses the internal C API:

https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/be33b7faf685560bb618561b44b751713a660337/torch/csrc/dynamo/eval_frame.c#L15-L17

I wouldn't say that this API is useless without a public API for _PyInterpreterFrame*. It's just "unusual" :-)

At least should be an opaque type, with a function to upgrade it to the full PyFrameObject.

It would make the code (way) slower, _PyInterpreterFrame* idea is to avoid creating a concrete Python object for a frame unless it's strictly needed. I suggest using the internal C API for _PyInterpreterFrame* instead.

I wouldn't say that this API is useless without a public API for _PyInterpreterFrame*.

What is the use, then?

@emmatyping @efimov-mikhail: Do you have an opinion on these questions?

IMO, the main idea of this change is not really to make those functions public. We mark them as PyUnstable_ for sending clear message to its users: "we remember about those function, we don't want to change or remove them in the near future". One can use them and rely on their presence in C API, but can't rely on stability of _PyInterpreterFrame structure. So, there's a need to use some private headers in this case.

I agree that it's not the perfect position for us, but current situation isn't any better.
We have functions that both private and public.
They're private, because they have _Py* names.
But they're "kinda public", since PEP 523 is guaranteed their presence.
PyUnstable_ suits better for those semi-public functions.
But making _PyInterpreterFrame and all its members PyUnstable_ too seems redundant to me.

But making _PyInterpreterFrame and all its members PyUnstable_ too seems redundant to me.

Same here. I think it should be opaque, and we should add (slow) a function to convert it to the full public PyFrameObject*.

That would make this usable without resorting to private API. Yes, doing that would be slow for the current users, so those will probably continue using the fully-private API -- but that's not the point.
If we expose PyUnstable_InterpreterState_GetEvalFrameFunc,

• users should be able to use it (simple slow printf-based debugging is a valid use case), and
• in CPython we should be able to test that you can use it without needing internal headers.

Or for a different point of view: really the issue solved here is that we don't want documented _Py-prefixed API.
That should apply to argument types too.

I created #141950 to add PyUnstable_InterpreterFrame_GetFrameObject().