On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Anthony Tolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is it so crucial that "self" is the first argument? If I use a
> > decorator that adds a new element to the beginning of the argument
> > list, I wouldn't be surprised that I now have to write my methods as::
> >
> > @add_initial_argument
> > def method(new_arg, self, ...):
> > ...
>
> That would work with class binding in Python 3.0 (i.e. "unbound"
> methods). In Python 2.5, doing that with an unbound method would
> throw an error.
>>> def add_initial_argument(func):
... def f(*args, **kwargs):
... return func('newarg', *args, **kwargs)
... return f
...
>>> class C(object):
... @add_initial_argument
... def foo(newarg, self):
... print newarg
...
>>> C().foo()
newarg
>>> C.foo(C())
newarg
I don't see an error thrown with either the bound or unbound methods...
STeVe
--
I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity.
--- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy
_______________________________________________
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
