RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jan 4 20:12:39 CET 2005 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-January/050636.html

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:28 AM 1/4/05 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 
>> Of course, more changes would be needed: docs, the test suite, and
>> some simplifications to the instance method object implementation in
>> classobject.c.
>>
>> Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
> 
> 
> Code that currently does 'aClass.aMethod.im_func' in order to access the 
> function object would break, as would code that inspects 'im_self' to 
> determine whether a method is a class or instance method.  (Although 
> code of the latter sort would already break with static methods, I 
> suppose.)

Code of the latter sort wouldn't break with the change. We'd still
have bound methods.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-January/050636.html below:

[Python-Dev] Let's get rid of unbound methods