On 2018年04月24日 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.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com