Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> I am still not convinced that it's a good idea to put the docstring in the > surrounding code object. I'd like to be able to see it when I introspect a > code object, not just when introspecting a function object (I may be > analyzing code only, and it's hard to connect the code object with the > NEW_FUNCTION opcode in the parent code object -- you have to scan the > bytecode, which is fragile.) I think that reasoning is not strong enough to add new member to code object. * Modules and classes don't get docstring from their code objects. Why only functions need to store docstring? * Lambdas, comprehensions, and PEP 649 (if acceptted) uses code objects but no docstring. Why they need to pay cost of `co_doc` member? (cost = memory + unmarshal time). Code objects have filename and firstlineno. And there are many functions without docstring. So removing docstring from code object won't make inspection hard so much. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue36521> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
