Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120607/a6a12663/attachment.html below:
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 06/06/2012 11:56 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADiSq7cQaRqXu=FOmqgbX+Lf7Wf7PS9_OV1Wy46AFg_egtKYqw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'd say return a copy in the first case to be safe against accidental
modification. If someone actually wants in-place modification, they
can access __signature__ directly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I really don't understand this anxiety about mutable Signature
objects. Can you give a plausible example of "accidental
modification" of a Signature object? I for one--as clumsy as I
am--cannot recall ever "accidentally" modifying an object.<br>
<br>
I really don't think signature() should bother copying/deep-copying
the Signature before returning it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo
| Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4