Greg Ewing wrote: >> A common Python idiom is to take different actions based on the capabilities >> of an object rather than its type. > > I have no objection to that when the capability can be > tested for easily and efficiently and without danger of > causing undesirable side effects. But callability is > not such a capability, therefore I think it's a bad > idea to design an API which relies on being able to > test for it.
it's spelled callable(), is successfully used in popular and well-designed API:s, is well- defined in terms of duck-typing, and all counter-examples we've seen on this list are utterly contrived. (and even if you dig up one *real* example where false callable positives are a real problem, I can assure you that there exists a trivial workaround for that specific case, no matter what it is) </F> _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
