[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > I don't personally use __call__ methods in my classes, but I have > encountered it every now and then here at work in code written by other > people. The other day I replaced __call__ with a more obvious method name, > so now instead of executing > > obj(foo, bar, baz) > > the code in question is > > obj.execute(foo, bar, baz) > > In this case there was a bug. Depending on inputs, sometimes obj > initialized to a class, sometimes an instance of that class. (I fixed that > too while I was at it.) The problem was that the use of __call__ obscured > the underlying bug by making the instance as well as the class callable. > > In this particular case it was clearly unnecessary and just obfuscated the > code. I'm wondering, are there some general cases where __call__ methods of > a user-defined class are simply indispensable?
Thanks to closures and bound methods, I don't think that there is a case where you can't "fake" the missing __call__ at least when it comes to call-backs. So in the end, you can always work around that. But if you don't need to... Se the gnosis multimethods for an implementation that makes sensible use of the __call__-operator in my opinion. diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
