On 04/25/18 14:46, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2018-04-25 20:33, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Perhaps "m_objclass" could point to the module in this case
That was exactly my idea also today. Instead of treating m_objclass as
the defining class, we should generalize it to be the "parent" of the
function: either the class or the module.
Great to hear we think alike.
However, I think that while reusing the pointer is nice to save space,
the two concepts should still be separate, because "defining module" is
a reasonable concept even for methods. In particular:
- There should be *separate* accessor functions for:
- getting the defining class
- getting the defining module
- The latter would later (in PEP 573) be extended to return the defining
module even for class methods (when available)
- In Python code, __objclass__ should be the defining class, not the module.
- The C field should have a different name (m_parent?), so it isn't that
strongly associated with __objclass__.
Does that sound reasonable?
_______________________________________________
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
