On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote:
> On 2018-04-13 21:30, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > >> It would be nice to have a section that specifically discusses the >> implications with respect to other existing function-like tooling: >> classmethod, staticmethod, partial, itemgetter, attrgetter, methodgetter, >> etc. >> > > My hope is that there are no such implications. An important design goal > of this PEP (which I believe I achieved) is that as long as you're doing > duck typing, you should be safe. I believe that the tools in your list do > exactly that. > > It's only when you use inspect or when you do type checks that you will > see the difference with this PEP. > That actually sounds like a pretty big problem. I'm sure there is lots of code that doesn't *just* duck-type nor calls inspect but uses isinstance() to decide how to extract the desired information. > After implementing the C code part of my PEP, there were only a relatively > small number of test failures. You can look at this commit which contains > all Python code changes of my implementation, it doesn't look so bad: > > https://github.com/jdemeyer/cpython/commit/c404a8f1b7d9525dd > 2842712fe183a051a4b5094 > > For example, I would need to update the code in random._randbelow(). >> > > For the record, there are no test failures related to this, but maybe > that's just because tests for this are missing. > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
