On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Benjamin Peterson<benjamin at python.org> wrote: > 2012/6/15 Larry Hastings<larry at hastings.org>: >> If I understand you correctly, you seem to be trying to apply >> "is_implemented" to the problem of predicting which specific inputs to a >> parameter would be valid. I don't think that problem is tractable--it's way >> too context-specific. > Exactly! It's too context sensitive to belong on a generic signature > object. Without is_implemented, all the properties of the signature > object should only change if you alter the parameter list. How a > parameter is dealt with in the function should not affect the > signature of a function. My opinion is that function introspection allows you to answer questions about that function, and the question "Can I use this parameter at all?" is relevant. On 06/15/2012 10:21 AM, Alexandre Zani wrote: > I agree. It seems to me is_implemented solves too small a class of the > problem it attacks to be worth including in the signature. I concede that I appear to be in an extremely small minority. (Has a single other person stepped forward in support of is_implemented? I don't recall one.) //arry/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120615/671998ca/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