On 04/06/13 12:43, 探晴 wrote:
nothing
Your email appears to be blank, except for a large chunk of HTML code. Did you
have something specific to say other than the subject line?
As for unbound methods, Guido's time machine strikes again. They're already
gone in Python 3.
py class X:
...
Tim Peters wrote:
I expect that's because he stopped working on Zope code, so actually
thinks it's odd again to see a gazillion methods like:
class Registerer(my_base):
def register(*args, **kws):
my_base.register(*args, **kws)
I second that! My PyGUI code is *full* of __init__
methods
On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f
should just return the function object, not an unbound method that
behaves almost, but not quite, the same as that function object. The
extra type checking on the first
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:03AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
In my blog I wrote:
Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f
should just return the function object, not an unbound method that
behaves almost, but not quite, the same as that function object. The
[Guido van Rossum]
Let's get rid of unbound methods.
+1
[Jim Fulton]
duck typing?
Requiring a specific interface instead of a specific type.
[Guido]
Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
[Jim]
It *feels* very disruptive to me, but I'm probably wrong.
We'll still need unbound
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my blog I wrote:
Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f
should just return the function object, not an unbound method that
behaves almost, but not quite, the same as that function
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:02:06 GMT, Jp Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my blog I wrote:
Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f
should just return the function object, not an
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:18:15 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[me]
Actually, unbound builtin methods are a different type than bound
builtin methods:
[Jim]
Of course, but conceptually they are similar. You would still
encounter the concept if you got an unbound builtin
At 11:40 AM 1/4/05 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[Jim]
We'll still need unbound builtin methods, so the concept won't
go away. In fact, the change would mean that the behavior between
builtin methods and python methods would become more inconsistent.
Actually, unbound builtin methods are a
Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Tim Peters]
... Unbound methods are used most often (IME) to call a
base-class method from a subclass, like
my_base.the_method(self, ...).
It's especially easy to forget to write `self, ` there, and the
exception msg then is quite focused
10 matches
Mail list logo
