Brett Cannon wrote:
...
> Part of the reason I asked about the magic slots is that I personally
> think it would be great if you didn't have to use the specific struct
> slots for magic slots but instead were called based on their name in
> Python. That way you would not have to view Include/object.h every time
> you wanted to use one of the magic methods; you could just add it just
> like any other method and just give it a Python name that matched its
> magic method name. The obvious drawback is you would lose compiler
> checking that the arguments were correct for the method.
No, vice versa. I *could* support any magic slot and put
it into the extended type object with a Python name.
And even better, this version could have full type
checking, as my other methods have as well! This could
go far bejond what we have now. My system is explicit
as types: You repeat the whole function argument list
in the new gown slot. This is as type safe as can be.
Esoterically y'rs - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
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