Changes by Alexandre Vassalotti alexan...@peadrop.com:
--
resolution: - duplicate
status: open - closed
superseder: - Implement PEP 3154 (pickle protocol 4)
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com added the comment:
Stefan, I've fixed refleak found by you in #15404. Thanks.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
Stefan Mihaila mstefa...@gmail.com added the comment:
Richard, yes, I think that would work, I didn't think of using f.__self__'s
type.
You might want to replace
if self is not None and not isinstance(self, types.ModuleType):
with
if self is not None and not isinstance(self,
Stefan Mihaila mstefa...@gmail.com added the comment:
Andrew, thanks for creating a separate issue (the refleak was very rare and I
thought I'd put it in the same place, but now I realize it was a bad idea).
Richard, actually, the isinstance(self, type) check I mentioned earlier would
have to
Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com added the comment:
Stefan, you right.
A bit hairy idiom from my perspective, but it works.
Looks like this way used only for PyCFunction_New, all other code follows
standard schema with trampoline.
--
___
Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com added the comment:
Can't you unbind without any changes to the C code by doing
def unbind(f):
if hasattr(f, '__func__'):
return f.__func__
self = getattr(f, '__self__', None)
if self is not None and not isinstance(self,
Changes by Stefan Mihaila mstefa...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +alexandre.vassalotti, ncoghlan, rhettinger
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
New submission from Stefan Mihaila mstefa...@gmail.com:
In order to implement pickling of instance methods, a means of separating
the object and the unbound method is necessary.
This is easily done for Python methods (f.__self__ and f.__func__),
but not all of builtins support __func__.
Changes by Meador Inge mead...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +meador.inge
stage: - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
___
Changes by Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +asvetlov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
___
Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com added the comment:
Can you push patch in form available for review via Rietveld?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
Changes by Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
___
Stefan Mihaila mstefa...@gmail.com added the comment:
Yes, the patch is at http://codereview.appspot.com/6425052/
The code there also contains some tests I've written for functools.unbind.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26439/unbind_test.patch
Changes by Daniel Urban urban.dani...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +daniel.urban
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15397
___
___
Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com added the comment:
Looks like PyCFunction_NewEx is part of Stable API.
If I'm right you have to make stub for this one as simple trampoline to new
PyCFunction_NewExEx implementation.
Martin, please confirm.
--
nosy: +loewis
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment:
Andrew is right: PyCFunction_NewEx must stay, and must continue to get the same
parameters as it currently does. This not only applies to extensions already
built, but also to extensions that are built against the new header files: they
Stefan Mihaila mstefa...@gmail.com added the comment:
Doesn't the definition I've added at the end of methodobject.c suffice?
(http://codereview.appspot.com/6425052/patch/1/10) Or should the macro be
removed altogether?
--
___
Python tracker
17 matches
Mail list logo
