On 2018-04-13 21:30, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > It would be nice to have a section that specifically discusses the implications with respect to other existing function-like tooling: classmethod, staticmethod, partial, itemgetter, attrgetter, methodgetter, etc. My hope is that there are no such implications. An important design goal of this PEP (which I believe I achieved) is that as long as you're doing duck typing, you should be safe. I believe that the tools in your list do exactly that. It's only when you use inspect or when you do type checks that you will see the difference with this PEP. After implementing the C code part of my PEP, there were only a relatively small number of test failures. You can look at this commit which contains all Python code changes of my implementation, it doesn't look so bad: https://github.com/jdemeyer/cpython/commit/c404a8f1b7d9525dd2842712fe183a051a4b5094 > For example, I would need to update the code in random._randbelow(). For the record, there are no test failures related to this, but maybe that's just because tests for this are missing.
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