I second that removal of callable() would be a bad idea. There are too many cases where it is not feasable to "just call the object and catch the exception". In the cases where the call would not happen until later than the test for callability, it would require then that any state changes caused before the call would be reversed if calling the object raised any error, and sometimes that is not even possible. Further, it ignores all cases where we are simply introspecting and do not want any side effects from said introspection.
On 7/17/06, Andrew Koenig <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I note in PEP 3000 the proposal to remove callable(), with the comment "just
call the object and catch the exception."
I think that's a bad idea, because it takes away the ability to separate the
callability test from the first call. As a simple example, suppose you're
writing a function that you expect to be given a function as one of its
arguments:
def foo(bar, fun):
assert callable(fun)
# ...
It might be that foo doesn't actually call fun until much later.
Nevertheless, from a testing viewpoint, it would be better to detect the
error immediately of passing something that can't be called.
If you didn't have callable, how would you write this example?
_______________________________________________
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/ironfroggy%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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
