RetroSearch Browse

Sat Nov 19 03:31:09 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-November/114515.html

> I haven't seen any strong objections, so I would like to go ahead and
> commit PEP 3155 (*) soon. Is anyone against it?

I'm not against it, but I have some questions.

Does you a working implementing?

Do you have a patch for issue #9276 using __qualname__? Maybe not a 
fully working patch, but a proof-of-concept?

Could you add examples on instances? I suppose that it gives the same 
result than classes:

   C.__qualname__ == C().__qualname__
   C.f.__qualname__ == C().f.__qualname__

Le 19/11/2011 00:15, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
 > I'd like the PEP to explain why this is a better solution than
 > re-establishing introspectability that was available through
 > unbound methods.

__qualname__ works also on nested functions. Is it a new feature? Or was 
it already possible in Python 2 to compute the qualified name?

Victor

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-November/114515.html below:

[Python-Dev] Committing PEP 3155