On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Benjamin Peterson<benja...@python.org> wrote:
2012/6/15 Larry Hastings<la...@hastings.org>:
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be trying to apply
"is_implemented" to the problem of predicting which specific inputs to a
parameter would be valid. I don't think that problem is tractable--it's way
too context-specific.
Exactly! It's too context sensitive to belong on a generic signature
object. Without is_implemented, all the properties of the signature
object should only change if you alter the parameter list. How a
parameter is dealt with in the function should not affect the
signature of a function.
My opinion is that function introspection allows you to answer questions
about that function, and the question "Can I use this parameter at all?"
is relevant.
On 06/15/2012 10:21 AM, Alexandre Zani wrote:
I agree. It seems to me is_implemented solves too small a class of the
problem it attacks to be worth including in the signature.
I concede that I appear to be in an extremely small minority. (Has a
single other person stepped forward in support of is_implemented? I
don't recall one.)
//arry/
_______________________________________________
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
