Here is an example of how it could be done. https://gist.github.com/stephanh42/97b47506e5e416f97f5790c070be7878
Stephan Op di 31 jul. 2018 01:29 schreef Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:10:32AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > > Jamesie Pic wrote: > > >def o.bar(self): ... > > > > You could get almost the same effect with > > > > from functools import partial > > > > def bar(self, other_args): > > ... > > > > o.bar = partial(bar, o) > > Why are you using functools.partial instead of types.MethodType? I'm > wondering if there is some advantage to partial that I don't recognise. > > I'm not sure if there's a functional difference between the two > approaches, but it makes o.bar a different kind of callable and that > will probably make a difference to somebody. > > > > But IMO this is nowhere near being a common enough thing to > > do to justify having special syntax for it. > > This sort of thing isn't common because there's no neat, easy, obvious, > built-in way to do it. If we allowed people to extend classes using the > syntax > > def classobj.methodname(...): ... > > def instance.methodname(...): ... > > people would use the technique more. For good or ill. > > I don't question the utility of this technique, but I suspect we prefer > to *slightly* discourage it by *not* providing a Batteries Included > solution for this. If you want to do this, we won't stop you, but > neither will we encourage it by supporting it in syntax or providing a > standard decorator for it. > > > > -- > Steve > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
