On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:03AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > In my blog I wrote: > > Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f > should just return the function object, not an unbound method that > behaves almost, but not quite, the same as that function object. The > extra type checking on the first argument that unbound methods are > supposed to provide is not useful in practice (I can't remember that > it ever caught a bug in my code) and sometimes you have to work around > it; it complicates function attribute access; and the overloading of > unbound and bound methods on the same object type is confusing. Also, > the type checking offered is wrong, because it checks for subclassing > rather than for duck typing. > > Does anyone think this is a bad idea? Anyone want to run with it? > I like the idea, it means I can get rid of this[1]
func = getattr(cls, 'do_command', None) setattr(cls, 'do_command', staticmethod(func.im_func)) # don't let anyone on c.l.py see this .. or at least change the comment *grin*, -Jack [1] http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lyntin/lyntin40/sandbox/leantin/mudcommands.py?view=auto _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com