[Python-Dev] Should we do away with unbound methods in Py3k? (original) (raw)
Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Sat Nov 24 19:22:04 CET 2007
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Should we do away with unbound methods in Py3k?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Should we do away with unbound methods in Py3k?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 09:56 AM 11/24/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, there was discussion of this before: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-January/050625.html -- why didn't we decide to do it then?
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-January/051236.html
There were also a few protests of use cases that could not be worked around (e.g. pickling methods), and a few people pointed out that the type checking actually is useful when using explicit base calls (BaseClass.somemethod(self,...)), as it usually catches when you forget to include the self argument.)
(Note that super() doesn't do away with the need for such explicit upcalls, especially in init, as multiple-inheriting classes with non-cooperative bases usually need to individually call the base class init methods.)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Should we do away with unbound methods in Py3k?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Should we do away with unbound methods in Py3k?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]