On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0800, Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum at gmail.com> wrote:
>In my blog I wrote:
>
> Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f
> should just return the function object, not an unbound method that
> behaves almost, but not quite, the same as that function object. The
> extra type checking on the first argument that unbound methods are
> supposed to provide is not useful in practice (I can't remember that
> it ever caught a bug in my code) and sometimes you have to work around
> it; it complicates function attribute access; and the overloading of
> unbound and bound methods on the same object type is confusing. Also,
> the type checking offered is wrong, because it checks for subclassing
> rather than for duck typing.
>
This would make pickling (or any serialization mechanism) of
`Class.method' based on name next to impossible. Right now, with
the appropriate support, this works:
>>> import pickle
>>> class Foo:
... def bar(self): pass
...
>>> pickle.loads(pickle.dumps(Foo.bar))
<unbound method Foo.bar>
>>>
I don't see how it could if Foo.bar were just a function object.
Jp
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