Message112483
| Author |
belopolsky |
| Recipients |
alexandre.vassalotti, belopolsky, exarkun, lemburg, pitrou |
| Date |
2010年08月02日.14:56:11 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00025263088 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<AANLkTimJH2JgU0_FaiagO4EUPuogSNYiodTXdMZPNsVr@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1280759558.73.0.698064469078.issue9276@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@twistedmatrix.com> added the comment:
>
>> I also like Antoine's idea of pickling the function/method name instead of the whole code object.
>
> I like it too. That's why I suggested it in the first comment on the ticket (read the linked
> code). I guess Alexander likes it too, since he basically said as much in the second
> comment. ;)
Yes, I think we have a consensus on this point. Note, however that
since unbound methods have been removed in 3.x, it is not trivial to
find a fully qualified name of a method anymore. Also we need to
decide where to stop: should methods of nested classes be pickleable? |
|