On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:43:34 -0700 Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 08:20 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > 2012/6/14 Larry Hastings<la...@hastings.org>: > >> Also, it's more granular than that. For example, Python now understands > >> symbolic links on Windows--but only haphazardly at best. The > >> "follow_symlinks" argument works on Windows for os.stat() but not for > >> os.chmod(). > > Then indeed it's more granular than a parameter being "implemented" or > > not. A parameter may have a more restricted or extended meaning on > > different operating systems. (sendfile() on files for example). > > If you can suggest a representation that can convey this sort of subtle > complexity without being miserable to use, I for one would be very > interested to see it. I suggest that "is_implemented" solves a > legitimate problem in a reasonable way; I wasn't attempting to be all > things to all use cases. I don't think it solves a legitimate problem. As Benjamin pointed out, people want to know whether a functionality is supported, not whether a specific parameter is "implemented". Also, the incantation to look up that information on a signature object is definitely too complicated to be helpful. 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
