<[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 it was designed (dark ages, really), but I assume the point was that, back then, we only had what's now the legacy object model: bound methods could only be bound to instances, classes were distinct from types, etc. So, an im_self that wasn't an instance had no possible "normal" meaning, and None was a handy placeholder. Of course, this design then couldn't be changed (nor can it be now, until 3.0) to preserve backwards compatibility. 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 helping of irrefutable use cases. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
