Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I discussed this approach with Guido in private e-mail a few months back
> during discussion about an article I was writing for DDJ about
> decorators. We also discussed something very similar to
> 'update_meta()', but never settled on a name. Originally he wanted me
> to PEP the whole thing, but he wanted it to include optional type
> declaration info, so you can probably see why I haven't done anything on
> that yet. :)
>
> However, if we can define a __signature__ format that allows for type
> declaration, I imagine there'd be little problem with moving forward on it.
But one of the reasons for providing 'update_meta' is so that additional
metadata (like __signature__) can later be added transparently.
Does deciding whether or not to supply the function really need to be dependent
on whether or not a format for __signature__ has been chosen?
Cheers,
Nick.
P.S. the patch is currently deficient in the test and documentation departments,
so it's formally incomplete, but I figure it makes sense to finish the
discussion before sorting those out.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at email.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
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