> If 'callable' is to stay, then in order to pull its weight it needs to > grow to provide a way to check "callable with the following signature" > -- at the very least in terms of numbers and names of arguments, > though (if py3k does gain some syntax for specifying argument types) > it might do more. E.g., just "callable(fun)" should mean "fun appears > to be callable without arguments, e.g. I believe that doing 'fun()' > will not result in a TypeError from the call operation itself", while > "callable(fun, int, zap=list[int])" should mean "fun appears to be > callable with one positional argument that's an int and an argument > named zap that is a list of ints", i.e. the apparently-acceptable call > is of some form such as "fun(23, [4, 5])" [[presumably using object as > a placeholder for unchecked-types]] -- so that for example a > +1 on the concept. If it doesn't go in __builtin__, maybe it can go somewhere in the stdlib so that people don't have to reimplement it badly.
BC _______________________________________________ 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
