On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 03:31:09 +0100 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> wrote: > > I haven't seen any strong objections, so I would like to go ahead and > > commit PEP 3155 (*) soon. Is anyone against it? > > I'm not against it, but I have some questions. > > Does you a working implementing?
I suppose the question is about a working implementation :) http://hg.python.org/features/pep-3155 > Do you have a patch for issue #9276 using __qualname__? Maybe not a > fully working patch, but a proof-of-concept? No. That's part of PEP 3154. > Could you add examples on instances? I suppose that it gives the same > result than classes: > > C.__qualname__ == C().__qualname__ > C.f.__qualname__ == C().f.__qualname__ No. You have to use C().__class__.__qualname__. Same as C().__class__.__name__, really. > Le 19/11/2011 00:15, Barry Warsaw a écrit : > > I'd like the PEP to explain why this is a better solution than > > re-establishing introspectability that was available through > > unbound methods. > > __qualname__ works also on nested functions. Is it a new feature? Or was > it already possible in Python 2 to compute the qualified name? It's a new feature indeed. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
