On 04/24/18 13:12, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2018-04-24 16:34, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On the other hand, if you are passing the function object, then you can
get __self__ from it (unless it's an unbound method: in that case
__self__ is NULL and self is really args[0]). So there wouldn't be a
need for passing "self". I'm not saying that this is better than passing
"self" explicitly... I haven't yet decided what is best.
One thing I realized from PEP 573: the fact that __self__ for built-in
functions is set to the module is considered a feature. I never
understood the reason for it (and I don't know if the original reason
was the same as the reason in PEP 573).
If we want to continue supporting that and we also want to support
__get__ for built-in functions (to make them act as methods), then there
are really two "selfs": there is the "self" from the method (the object
that it's bound to) and the "self" from the built-in function (the
module). To support that, passing *both* the function and "self" seems
like the best way.
You're talking about functions with METH_BINDING here, right?
There the other "self" would be the defining module.
It might make sense to pass that also in the struct, rather than as an
additional argument.
Perhaps "m_objclass" could point to the module in this case, or a new
pointer could be added.
_______________________________________________
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
