If PEP 575's new call doesn't have any surprising restrictions, I think that completely dropping METH_METHOD would be the best way of resolving this. I suggest we push PEP 575 first and if it gets accepted, I will rebase PEP 573 to these changes.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote: > On 2018-04-24 14:53, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>> In PEP 575, I'm already proposing a flag (METH_ARG0_FUNCTION) to pass the >>> function *instead* of self. Unless PEP 573 is rejected, maybe that should >>> change to passing the function *in addition* to self. >> >> >> That would definitely be an elegant way of addressing both use cases. > > > 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. > > In any case, these things would be handled by Argument Clinic anyway, so it > only matters if you are parsing arguments "by hand". > > > > Jeroen. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/gmarcel.plch%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com