Sorry I missed answering these on my first pass. On 06/06/2012 08:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > What to do about parameters which are partly implemented? E.g. > mode='spam' is implemented but mode='ham' is not. Parameter objects aren't sophisticated enough to represent such a situation. If you have a use case for a more sophisticated approach, and can propose a change to the Parameter object to handle it, I'd be interested to see it. In truth, the way I currently support those "unimplemented" parameters is, passing in the default parameter is still permitted. So in a way I suppose I already have this situation, kinda? But is_implemented as it stands works fine for my use case. > inspect.getfullargspec is currently unable to introspect builtin > functions and methods. Should builtins gain a __signature__ so they > can be introspected? If function signatures are useful, then they're useful, and the implementation language for the function is irrelevant. I already sent Yuri a patch adding __signature__ to PyCFunctionObject, which I thought he merged but I don't see in his repo. The problem (obviously) is generating the signature. Brett has an idea about parsing the docstring; it strikes me as hackish. I think solving the problem definitively will require a new argument parsing API and that's simply not happening for 3.3. If my patch for issue 14626 and PEP 362 both land in 3.3, my plan is to hard-code the signatures for just those functions. //arry/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120606/d0cc42d0/attachment.html>
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