Yury Selivanov added the comment: >> Otherwise we run the risk of introducing unexpected exceptions into >> introspection code.
> That's a good catch. I'll make a new patch, keeping the old implementation of > getfullargsspec intact, and falling back to it if no signature can be found. Nick, while I was working on the second patch (writing a new unittest for it specifically), I realized, that it's not that easy to make the old version of "getfullargsspec" to spit out any exception that it doesn't currently do with the proposed 'getargsspec_01.patch'. See, the old "getfullargsspec" does the following: 1. Check if the passed object is a function, with 'inspect.isfunction'. If not - throw a TypeError. That behaviour is duplicated in the patch, so we are safe here. 2. Call on the object's __code__ '_getfullargs', which validates that the passed code object is a valid code object, and simply returns its attributes rearranged a bit. Now, to have any exception in (2), we need: either a broken __code__ object, or something that is an instance of "types.FunctionType" (hence, defined in python) but doesn't have the "__code__" attribute. And that's kind of hard to achieve. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17481> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
