On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://bugs.python.org/issue3247 complains that with python 3.0, dir() > of a SRE_Match object returns an empty list. > > This type has the particularity to not define a tp_methods; instead, > its tp_getattr slot calls Py_FindMethod(match_methods, self, name) > where "match_methods" is a PyMethodDef[] array that looks very very > similar to a typical tp_methods slot. > > Py_FindMethod has a trick: when the requested name is "__methods__", > it returns the names of the PyMethodDef items. > > __methods__ has disappeared with python 3.0, and indeed if I enable > the "-3" warning flag on python2.6, > dir() on a SRE_Match object raises two (!) warnings: > __main__:1: DeprecationWarning: __methods__ not supported in 3.x > __main__:1: DeprecationWarning: __members__ and __methods__ not supported in > 3.x > > According to previous discussions: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-July/008787.html > Py_FindMethod is not needed any more in modern modules, and should go away. > Note that PyMember_Get has already disappeared, because the few > modules using them were deleted... > > Is it still time for such a change after beta1?
I'd say definitely. This just fell through the cracks. > There are ~30 occurrences of Py_FindMethod in the code base. > Most of the time, it is enough to remove the call, and set the > tp_methods members. Good! > Another thing: why was traceback.__dir__ added? > the current 3.0 produces: >>>> dir(b.__traceback__) > ['tb_frame', 'tb_lasti', 'tb_lineno', 'tb_next'] > > When I remove the __dir__ method, I get the special methods as well: >>>> dir(b.__traceback__) > ['__class__', '__delattr__', '__doc__', '__eq__', '__format__', > '__ge__', '__getattribute__', '__gt__', '__hash__', '__init__', > '__le__', '__lt__', '__ne__', '__new__', '__reduce__', > '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__setattr__', '__sizeof__', '__str__', > '__subclasshook__', 'tb_frame', 'tb_lasti', 'tb_lineno', 'tb_next'] > > It's more verbose, but most types have the same list of special > members. I suggest to remove it, to enhance consistency (loosing some > 2.6 compatibility, but it's python3.0 after all) Can't tell you why -- looks odd to me too. Hopefully Collin Winter remembers. -- --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
