2009/9/1 Brett Cannon <br...@python.org>: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:21, Benjamin Peterson<benja...@python.org> wrote: >> 2009/8/31 xiaobing jiang <s7v7nisla...@gmail.com>: >>> My idea is: here, the two functions (or maybe classes) should have the >>> same behavior). >>> so is this a bug or something I missing ? >> >> I think they should both not check their arguments in __init__ to >> allow for duck typing. > > But what is the point of wrapping something with classmethod or > staticmethod that can't be called? It isn't like it is checking > explicitly for a function or method, just that it can be called which > seems reasonable to me (unless PyCallable_Check() is as off as > callable() was).
Well, if checking if tp_call is not NULL is as bad as callable, then yes. I don't see any reason to use staticmethod or classmethod with a non-callable, but to be consistent, I would, given the choice between removing code and adding another type check, perfer to remove a type check. -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
