Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>
>>But I'm not proposing to use hasattr(obj, '__call__'). I'm basically
>>saying that the callable test has very little to do with whether the
>>later call will succeed, because we have no way to test the signature.
>
>
> I don't think that's neede
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> But I'm not proposing to use hasattr(obj, '__call__'). I'm basically
>> saying that the callable test has very little to do with whether the
>> later call will succeed, because we have no way to test the signature.
>
> I don't think that's needed
On 7/18/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Koenig wrote:
>
> > I am uncomfortable about exposing the implementation this way, if only
> > because it would require fixing the equivalence between callable() and
> > hasattr(obj, '__call__') for all time.
>
> I don't see anything bad ab
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 7/18/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andrew Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> I am uncomfortable about exposing the implementation this way, if
>>> only
>>> because it would require fixing the equivalence between callable
>>> () and
>>>
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> Classic classes?
I just checked, and it seems they've been fixed too:
callable() and hasattr(obj, '__call_') give the same
result -- true if and only if a __call__ method has
been defined.
Anyway, the point I was making is that this equivalence
is a *good* thing -- I can
On Jul 20, 2006, at 3:26 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>> Classic classes?
>
> I just checked, and it seems they've been fixed too:
> callable() and hasattr(obj, '__call_') give the same
> result -- true if and only if a __call__ method has
> been defined.
But classic classes
