Hi Armin,
[Armin Rigo Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:18:18PM +0100]
> Moreover, we have a different compatibility problem too: in CPython, built-in
> functions don't have a __get__, so you can put them in classes and read them
> out without having the first argument bound to the instance. For example, if
> you put 'operator.add' in the class TrivialObjSpace, then 'space.add' is
> exactly 'operator.add' and not a bound version of it.
>
> What should we do about it? Maybe asking python-dev for guidance?
We could ask who is relying on this behaviour that builtin functions don't
get bound on classes. Or maybe just ask who even *knows* it let alone relies
on it :-)
> Have 'unboundable function objects' -- like staticmethod, but the latter is not
> callable -- and make some carefully selected functions unboundable for
> compatibility?
only if need be. Can you think of any real world use case?
> For the 1st problem we could force a general solution by saying that the
> argument that a method binds is hidden to keywords. It would also make the
> very first example of this e-mail work, although it doesn't work in CPython.
Your recent changes (of holding positional and keyword arguments in an
Argument instance (nice!)) already implement this. Makes sense.
cheers,
holger
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
