On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Jeroen Demeyer schrieb am 24.03.2018 um 22:38: >> On 2018-03-24 09:09, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> If it was just about introspection, then we could define a new protocol >>> method or attribute, update the inspect module to respect it, and call >>> it done. >> >> True. In fact, I got a long way by just defining inspect.isfunction as >> >> def isfunction(obj): >> return hasattr(type(obj), "__code__") > > This relies on the fact that Cython attaches an (empty) code object to its > C implemented functions, which could be considered a hack but is needed for > things like source file reporting, and also line reporting (although we > don't currently use that, but an even worse hack). > > The main problem, though, is that a lot of code out there does not use the > "inspect" module but "types" to distinguish its input. That probably got a > bit better over time with the ABCs, but for things like functions, > generators and coroutines, I doubt that people would easily consider them. > "types" just seems too obvious at first thought. > > Which suggests that it could help to add a visible note to the CPython docs > of the "types" module that it's often better to use "inspect" or the ABCs. > Seems worth a PR.
If people are checking "if type(x) is types.FunctionType", they're doing it wrong. But if the check is "isinstance(x, types.FunctionType)", maybe the solution is to register builtin_function_or_method as a virtual subclass? ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
