Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Also, there was discussion of this before:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-January/050625.html
> -- why didn't we decide to do it then?
Skimming that thread, the issues seem to be:
- worse error messages from explicit base class calls if you forget
to supply self
- breaking code that uses im_func, im_class, im_self
This led to a mixture of a few +1's and several -0's, so it didn't happen.
Py3k severely reduces the weight of the latter objection though, and we
can use the Py3k warnings feature in 2.6 to complain if any code
attempts to access im_self, im_class or im_func on an instancemethod
object when im_class is None.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
