<html>

 <head>

  <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"

   http-equiv="Content-Type">

 </head>

 <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">

  <br>

  <br>

  On 06/06/2012 08:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:<br>

  <blockquote cite="mid:4FCF7965.5070102@pearwood.info" type="cite">What's

   the fully qualified name of the function, and why is it needed?

   <br>

  </blockquote>

  <br>

  Please see PEP 3155.<br>

  <br>

  <br>

  <blockquote cite="mid:4FCF7965.5070102@pearwood.info" type="cite">"args"

   is just a common name for the parameter, not for the kind of

   parameter. *args (or *data, *whatever) is a varargs parameter, and

   so the attribute should be called "is_varargs".

   <br>

   [...]<br>

   Likewise for **kwargs (or **kw, etc.)<br>

  </blockquote>

  <br>

  Yury will be pleased; those were his original names.&nbsp; I argued for

  "is_args" and "is_kwargs".<br>

  <br>

  I assert that "args" and "kwargs" are not merely "common name[s] for

  the parameter[s]", they are The Convention.&nbsp; Any seasoned Python

  programmer examining a Signature object who sees "is_args" and

  "is_kwargs" will understand immediately what they are.&nbsp; Jamming

  "var" in the middle of these names does not make their meaning any

  clearer--in fact I suggest it only detracts from readability.<br>

  <br>

  <br>

  <blockquote cite="mid:4FCF7965.5070102@pearwood.info" type="cite">Is

   there a use-case for is_implemented?</blockquote>

  <br>

  Yes, see issue

  <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;

   charset=ISO-8859-1">

  14626.<br>

  <br>

  <br>

  <blockquote cite="mid:4FCF7965.5070102@pearwood.info" type="cite">What

   happens when the existing function metadata and the __signature__

   object disagree? <br>

   <br>

   Are there use-cases where we want them to disagree, or is

   disagreement always a sign that something is broken? <br>

   [...]<br>

   "Changes to the Signature object, or to any of its data members, <br>

   do not affect the function itself." <br>

   <br>

   which leaves the possibility that __signature__ may no longer

   match the actual argument spec, for some reason. If you remove

   getfullargspec, people will have to reinvent it to deal with such

   cases.</blockquote>

  <br>

  There's no reason why they should disagree.&nbsp; The "some reason" would

  be if some doorknob decided to change it--the objects are mutable,

  because there's no good reason to make them immutable.<br>

  <br>

  We just wanted to be explicit, that information flowed from the

  callable to the Signature and never the other way 'round.<br>

  <br>

  As for "what would happen", nothing good.&nbsp; My advice: don't change

  Signature objects for no reason.<br>

  <br>

  <br>

  <i>/arry</i><br>

 </body>

</html>