Alex Martelli wrote:
> Guido has mused about abolishing "unbound methods" (in 3.0, I guess), so
> there's hope for the future. But a more complete 'partial' is likely to
> be acceptable sooner than any fix to bound/unbound methods: I suspect
> the only ingredient that's missing is a generous help
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> thanks. So in this special case, None is being treated as a "flag"
> rather than just an instance(I just read the doc) like any other
> instance and the behaviour is intended. Is there any reason why it is
> designed this way ?
I didn't yet know Python back when
Alex Martelli wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> > So it seems that instancemethod() don't like "None" as the instance.
>
> "bound methods" and "unbound methods" are instance of the same type,
> distinguished by one thing: the im_self of an unbound method is None,
> the im_self of a bo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> So it seems that instancemethod() don't like "None" as the instance.
"bound methods" and "unbound methods" are instance of the same type,
distinguished by one thing: the im_self of an unbound method is None,
the im_self of a bound method is anything else.
So, w
I came across this while searching for a way to DIY partial(), until it
is available in 2.5
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/229472
However, when trying for the following, it doesn't work and is
wondering if it is a bug or intended :
>>> import operator
>>> import new
>>>
