jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then, without looking at the previous code, one can say that "x" is a function which takes one argument.
One can say whatever one wishes, but saying it does not make it true.
One can say that x is a green frog, but that's false: x is a boundmethod.
One can say that x is a function, but that's false: x is a boundmethod.
One can say that x is a spade, but that's false: x is a boundmethod.
I understand that a function and a boundmethod are *different* things. For one a *boundmethod* has the attributes im_self, im_class, which a function does not have (a green frog neither). Thus they are not the same thing.
HOWEVER, what I ask is WHY don't we set the tp_descr_get of the boundmethod object to be the same as the func_descr_get??? Or WHY do they *have* to differ in this specific part?
I quickly looked at the source of python and it seems that a one-liner would be enough to enable this. So it's not that it would be hard to implement it, or inefficient.
A bound method would *still* be a boundmethod. We could additionally have:
>>>type(x)
<boundmethod of <boundmethod of <boundmethod of....<__main__.A instance at 0x>>>
If there a good reason that the __get__ of a boundmethod does not create a new boundmethod wrapper over the first boundmethod?
G. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
