On 5/27/07, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > The bound method object isn't stored in the class -- it's created by > > the "C.method" or "inst.method" getattr operation. I don't see how > > this would introduce a cycle. > > > >> If we store the class, we can store it as a weakref - the when the > >> super object is created, a strong reference to the class exists. > > We need to create some relationship between the unbound method and the > class. So the class has a reference to the unbound method, and the unbound > method has a reference to the class, thus creating a cycle. Bound methods > don't come into it - it's the unbound method that's the problem.
Still wrong, I think. The unbound method object *also* isn't stored in the class. It's returned by the C.method operation. Compare C.method (which returns an unbound method) to C.__dict__['method'] (which returns the actual function object stored in the class). > > Since class and type are synonym (as you say) having both im_class and > > im_type would be a bad idea. > > I'm struggling to think of another, not too complicated name that conveys > the same information. Keep trying. im_type is not acceptable. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
