Gordon McMillan: > Jeremy Hylton wrote: > > It prevents confusion and errors > > that might result from unprincipled use of function attributes. > > While I'm sure I will be properly shocked and horrified when > you come up with an example, in my naivety, I can't imagine > what it will look like ;-). I'm w/ Gordon & Barry on this one. I've wanted method and function attributes in the past and had to rely on building completely new classes w/ __call__ methods just to 'fake it'. There's a performance cost to having to do that, but most importantly there's a big increase in code complexity, readability, maintanability, yaddability, etc. I'm surprised that Jeremy sees it as such a problem area -- if I wanted to play around with static typing, having a version of Python which let me store method metadata cleanly would make me jump with joy. FWIW, I'm perfectly willing to live in a world where 'unprincipled use of method and function attributes' means that my code can't get optimized, just like I don't expect my code which modifies __class__ to get optimized (as long as someone defines what those principles are!). --david
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