Dino Viehland wrote: > What about instead defining __argspec__ for built-in functions/method > objects and allowing all the implementations to implement it? We could > all agree to return: > > [ > (return_type, (arg_types,...)), > (return_type, (arg_types,...)), > ] > > Then inspect can check for that attribute and support introspection on > built-ins. This would be an easy feature for us to implement and it > may also be for Jython as well given that we both get the power of our > platforms reflection capabilities. Any platform that implements it > lights up w/o new platform specific code. And maybe this needs to go > to python-ideas now :)
Curiously, inspect limitations on CPython (can't inspect functools.partial, has issues with some descriptors and decorators) got us chatting about PEP 362: Function Signature Object[0] on #python-dev today. PEP 362 was also brought up in a recent thread where the executive summary was 'it just needs someone to guide it through the last steps'[1], and it would make this kind of introspection nice and clean[2]. It makes even more sense now we have PEP 3107: Function Annotations[3] in place. Cheers, Daniel [0] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/ [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088517.html [2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088597.html [3] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/#parameters _______________________________________________ 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
