On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:22:50 +0200
Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't really see your point in this example. For one: why would
> anyone do this? Is this based on a real example?
Yes, I remember doing that when writing unit tests for open() and
open()-like functions.
You would write a base test case:
class TestBase:
open_func = None
def test_something(self):
self.open_func(...) # etc.
and then instantiate concrete subclasses:
class BuiltinOpenTest(TestBase, unittest.TestCase):
open_func = open
class PyOpenTest(TestBase, unittest.TestCase):
open_func = staticmethod(_pyio.open)
> 2) That's how any
> function works. If you put some arbitrary function in a class body,
> and it's not able to accept an instance of that class as its first
> argument, then it will always be broken unless you make it a
> staticmethod. I don't see how there should be any difference there if
> the function were implemented in Python or in C.
I agree that there *should* be no difference. The point is, there is
currently a difference and suppressing it may break compatibility.
I don't think the breakage is important enough to stop us from
streamlining things here. Just pointing out the risk exists.
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
