RetroSearch Browse

Tue Apr 24 13:12:34 EDT 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-April/152992.html

On 2018-04-24 16:34, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On the other hand, if you are passing the function object, then you can
> get __self__ from it (unless it's an unbound method: in that case
> __self__ is NULL and self is really args[0]). So there wouldn't be a
> need for passing "self". I'm not saying that this is better than passing
> "self" explicitly... I haven't yet decided what is best.

One thing I realized from PEP 573: the fact that __self__ for built-in 
functions is set to the module is considered a feature. I never 
understood the reason for it (and I don't know if the original reason 
was the same as the reason in PEP 573).

If we want to continue supporting that and we also want to support 
__get__ for built-in functions (to make them act as methods), then there 
are really two "selfs": there is the "self" from the method (the object 
that it's bound to) and the "self" from the built-in function (the 
module). To support that, passing *both* the function and "self" seems 
like the best way.

Jeroen.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-April/152992.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 573 -- Module State Access from C Extension Methods