On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:17:09 -0700, Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: > On 06/15/2012 04:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Since I don't believe your proposed flag will answer any question that > > actually matters in practice, I consider it useless noise that should > > be dropped from the proposal. > > I can cite a situation where it matters in practice: the implementation > of os.fwalk is effectively gated on hasattr(posix, "openat"). I expect > to remove openat() in favor of adding a dir_fd parameter to open (see > issue 14626).
I don't think that justifies adding an attribute to __signature__, though. As someone pointed out, it isn't part of the function's signature, it is part of the function's function. Adding a os.have_openat seems more reasonable than adding is_implemented to every __signature__ object. And more useful, as well; it provides a much more specific piece of information. > > Now, what a function *could* do is set __signature__ to a Signature > > subclass that provided an additional "validate()" method, or provided > > arbitrary additional information about supported features. That's a > > perfectly reasonable option. > > What would the validate() function for os.close do? Why would you need one? --David _______________________________________________ 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