Message98706
| Author |
Alexander.Belopolsky |
| Recipients |
Alexander.Belopolsky, pitrou |
| Date |
2010年02月02日.02:04:16 |
| SpamBayes Score |
5.4063e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1265076260.18.0.382754844239.issue7830@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Antoine> Flattening should only happen for instances of the exact type.
I am attaching a variant of the patch that will only flatten if both nested and wrapping partial is of the exact type. Other possibilities would include flattening partial_subtype(f, ...) if type(f) == partial and if type(f) == partial_subtype, but I'll present only the least and most conservative variants.
Antoine> When people create subclasses [of partial type], there's usually a reason for it.
It is hard not to agree with this thesis, but I don't see how it follows that subclass writers will not benefit from flattening their instances. Can you suggest a use case where flattening in functools.partial subtype would be undesirable? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年02月02日 02:04:21 | Alexander.Belopolsky | set | recipients:
+ Alexander.Belopolsky, pitrou |
| 2010年02月02日 02:04:20 | Alexander.Belopolsky | set | messageid: <1265076260.18.0.382754844239.issue7830@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年02月02日 02:04:18 | Alexander.Belopolsky | link | issue7830 messages |
| 2010年02月02日 02:04:18 | Alexander.Belopolsky | create |
|