At 10:36 PM 3/15/05 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I discussed this approach with Guido in private e-mail a few months back
during discussion about an article I was writing for DDJ about
decorators. We also discussed something very similar to 'update_meta()',
but never settled on a name. Originally he wanted me to PEP the whole
thing, but he wanted it to include optional type declaration info, so you
can probably see why I haven't done anything on that yet. :)
However, if we can define a __signature__ format that allows for type
declaration, I imagine there'd be little problem with moving forward on it.
But one of the reasons for providing 'update_meta' is so that additional
metadata (like __signature__) can later be added transparently.
Yes, exactly.
Does deciding whether or not to supply the function really need to be
dependent on whether or not a format for __signature__ has been chosen?
Um, no. Why would you think that?
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
