On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 10:32 PM Jonathan Fine <jfine2...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest that an implementation which provides additional flexibility in the > manner in which the code frame is initialised would be less invasive. > Necessarily, PEP 671 allows programmer supplied code to be used in the > 'initialisation phase'. The previous attempts place that code in fn.__code__. > > I suggest that the implementation adds a new attribute fn.__wibble__ to fn, > which can either be None or a code object. And if fn.__wibble__ is not None, > then it is used to initialise the code frame in which fn.__code__ executes. > It would as before take as input the arguments actually supplied by the user. > > I stop here, saying nothing for now about two important questions. First, > what is the programmer syntax for creating such a 'two-part' function fn. > Second, what does the user see as a result of help(fn). Or in other words, > how to extend the semantics of inspect.signature. >
The code has to be executed in the context of the called function. How would fn.__wibble__ be different from checks at the top of fn.__code__? And, seeing something in help(fn) largely necessitates that the source code be retained. I don't know of any other way to do it. If you say that the default argument is "len(a)", then that's what help() should say. ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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/X42RZ57LC44QV6VAFWTX6DEIVXCY6XR3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
