Message129805
| Author |
cool-RR |
| Recipients |
alexandre.vassalotti, belopolsky, cool-RR, eric.araujo, exarkun, hinsen, lemburg, loewis, obamausa8, pitrou, rhettinger |
| Date |
2011年03月01日.21:03:13 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.2961333e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1299013399.37.0.8184603845.issue9276@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> [...] try to whip up a patch and upload it if it ends up not too hackish.
To have a non-hackish patch we need a non-hackish idea. The `.__parent_class__` idea looks hackish to me, but now that I think about it, how is it more hackish than a function's `.__module__` attribute?
I mean, a function's `.__module__` attribute says on which module the function was originally defined, but the function could be accessible on any other module and any other namespace or class. Its `.__module__` would remain constant, because it's the one place where you are guaranteed to be able to find the function, assuming it's defined in the top-level. So the `.__module__` attribute is used in unpickling the function. How is the `.__parent_class__` suggestion more hackish than `.__module__`? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年03月01日 21:03:19 | cool-RR | set | recipients:
+ cool-RR, lemburg, loewis, rhettinger, hinsen, exarkun, belopolsky, pitrou, alexandre.vassalotti, eric.araujo, obamausa8 |
| 2011年03月01日 21:03:19 | cool-RR | set | messageid: <1299013399.37.0.8184603845.issue9276@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年03月01日 21:03:13 | cool-RR | link | issue9276 messages |
| 2011年03月01日 21:03:13 | cool-RR | create |
|