On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:39:04PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:11 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that this is going to change under the proposal. Since > > neither f nor s already exist, they cannot overload assignment. Unless > > something in Nate's proposal is quite different from earlier concrete > > proposals, I don't think this is a slam-dunk criticism. I think that it > > is a problem is theory but not in practice. > > That would be true if the proposal were only for __setself__, but the > __getself__ part makes things more complicated. I'm not 100% sure > because I don't fully understand the proposal, but if the object > returned by frob(x) has a __getself__ method, I think it would be > called in f2 but NOT in f1 (because referencing the name "f" triggers > the get, whereas simply chaining ".spam" onto the end of the function > call doesn't). Without getting into any debate over whether we need both __getself__ and __setself__, I assume that if __getself__ is called at all, it is called consistently. Any lookup of the object ought to call it, not just a bare name. If Nate's proposal says differently, I would hope it is an oversight rather than an intended feature. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/5XBRL3PJZRSAHBGBKB3GBEG6V37SNG5U/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
