On 5/1/06, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2006, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > But there are two things that I can't quite decide upon. > > > > One is whether a signature object should be automatically created > > for every function. As of right now the PEP I am drafting has it > > on a per-need basis and have it assigned to __signature__ through > > a built-in function or putting it 'inspect'. Now automatically > > creating the object would possibly make it more useful, but it > > could also be considered overkill. Also not doing it automatically > > allows signature objects to possibly make more sense for classes (to > > represent __init__) and instances (to represent __call__). But having > > that same support automatically feels off for some reason to me. > > My take is that we should do it automatically and provide a helper > function that does additional work. The class case is already > complicated by __new__(); we probably don't want to automatically sort > out __init__() vs __new__(), but I think we do want regular functions and > methods to automatically have a __signature__ attribute. Aside from the > issue with classes, are there any other drawbacks to automatically > creating __signature__?
Well, one issue is the dichotomy between Python and C functions not both providing a signature object. There is no good way to provide a signature object automatically for C functions (at least at the moment; could add the signature string for PyArg_ParseTuple() to the PyMethodDef and have it passed in to the wrapped C function so that initialization of the class can get to the parameters string). So you can't fully rely on the object being available for all functions and methods unless a worthless signature object is placed for C functions. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
