Bruce Christensen wrote:
> Thanks! That helps a lot. PEP 307 and the pickle module docs describe the end
> result pretty well, but they don't always make it clear where things are
> implemented. I'm trying to make sure that I'm getting the right interaction
> between object.__reduce(_ex)__, pickle, and copy_reg..
You really should ignore the existance of copy_reg._reduce_ex. It's an
implementation detail - it could have been implemented just as well in
C directly, in which case you couldn't as easily replace it with a
different function. It might be implemented that way in the next
release, or the entire __reduce_ex__ implementation might be lifted
to Python some day.
> One (hopefully) last question: is object.__reduce(_ex)__ really implemented in
> object?
Sure.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
> File "C:\Python24\lib\pickle.py", line 1386, in dumps
> Pickler(file, protocol, bin).dump(obj)
> File "C:\Python24\lib\pickle.py", line 231, in dump
> self.save(obj)
> File "C:\Python24\lib\pickle.py", line 313, in save
> rv = reduce(self.proto)
> File "<stdin>", line 2, in bomb
> Exception: KABOOM! (<object object at 0x01E3C448>, 0) {}
You don't get a stack frame for C functions (normally, anyway):
there is no file/line number information available.
The reduce thing you are seeing really comes from
# Check for a __reduce_ex__ method, fall back to __reduce__
reduce = getattr(obj, "__reduce_ex__", None)
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
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
