On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:32:09PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> I am curious why the following will not work in Python:
>
> class foo(object):
> def bar(self):
> print self.attr
>
> class duck(object):
> attr = 3.14
>
> foo.bar(duck())
Thanks to ever
Christian Heimes wrote:
In 2.x a class objects wrap their functions in a method wrapper. The
method wrapper does the type check. You can get around the type check by
using the im_func attribute of the method wrapper.
You could probably also create a decorator that
gives you something behaving
Sebastian Rittau wrote:
Is it a design decision that duck-typing self does not work or is there a
technical reason?
There's no technical reason as far as user-defined
classes are concerned. I think it was introduced to
help catch errors due to making inherited method
calls to the wrong class,
Steven Bethard wrote:
>> Is it a design decision that duck-typing self does not work or is there a
>> technical reason? From a practical standpoint it seems that being able to
>> duck-type self has merit, for example in unit testing complex classes.
>
> Works for me in 3.0:
It works in 3.0 becaus
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Sebastian Rittau
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am curious why the following will not work in Python:
>
> class foo(object):
> def bar(self):
> print self.attr
>
> class duck(object):
> attr = 3.14
>
> foo.bar(duck())
>
> Is it a design decision that duck
Hi!
I am curious why the following will not work in Python:
class foo(object):
def bar(self):
print self.attr
class duck(object):
attr = 3.14
foo.bar(duck())
Is it a design decision that duck-typing self does not work or is there a
technical reason? From
