[issue12428] functools test coverage

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > Possibly reduce could be handled in a similar way with a fallback python > > implementation? Otherwise your suggestion of conditionally adding it to > > __all__ > > makes sense to me. > > In the meantime I'd expect the import of _functools.reduce to not be

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Eric Snow added the comment: > Possibly reduce could be handled in a similar way with a fallback python > implementation? Otherwise your suggestion of conditionally adding it to > __all__ > makes sense to me. In the meantime I'd expect the import of _functools.reduce to not be wrapped in a try

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Brian Thorne added the comment: > * Why the try block when there wasn't one before? > * Should reduce be added to __all__ only conditionally? My mistake, the try block should have just covered the import of partial - that is after all the exceptional circumstance we can deal with by using the p

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Eric Snow added the comment: The following from the changeset left me with questions: -from _functools import partial, reduce +try: +from _functools import reduce +except ImportError: +pass * Why the try block when there wasn't one before? * Should reduce be added to __all__ only condit

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Sorry for the delay. I have now committed the patch to 3.4 (default). Thank you! -- resolution: -> fixed stage: commit review -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.3 ___ Python

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset fcfaca024160 by Antoine Pitrou in branch 'default': Issue #12428: Add a pure Python implementation of functools.partial(). http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/fcfaca024160 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tra

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Brian Thorne added the comment: Back to a simpler closure implementation of partial and skip the repr test for python implementation. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26697/functools.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Le mardi 24 juillet 2012 à 06:00 +, Brian Thorne a écrit : > Isn't more compatibility between the Python and C implementations > desired? IMHO, not when compatibility regards obscure details such as whether setting an attribute is allowed or not. I don't kn

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Brian Thorne added the comment: Thanks Antoine, the __class__ attribute wasn't useful, I've removed that. Overriding the __setattr__ and __delattr__ gives consistent behaviour with the both versions - allowing the unittest reuse. Also I've changed thread back to _thread. Isn't more compatibi

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Why does the pure Python version of partial have to be so complicated? I don't think the __class__, __setattr__ and __delattr__ are useful. As Raymond said, only the core, documented functionality needs to be preserved, not implementation details. Something e

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Changes by Brian Thorne : -- nosy: +jackdied ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Changes by Ezio Melotti : -- nosy: +ezio.melotti ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.py

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Brian Thorne added the comment: I've updated the patch to address the comments here and in the code review. I added more cross testing of the pure Python implementation of partial - as you pointed out inheritance wasn't supported so I changed from the simple closure to a class implementation.

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Also, the closure based implementation should be decorated with @staticmethod (see http://bugs.python.org/issue11704) and the tests updated accordingly. -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Just noticed one minor nit with the patch: the pure Python version of functools.partial should support "func" as a keyword argument that is passed to the underlying object. The trick is to declare a positional only argument like this: def f(*args, **kwds):

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Éric Araujo added the comment: Ezio and I made further minor comments that can be handled by the person doing the commit; I’d like to do it. -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker __

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Brian's patch looks ok to me. There's a missing newline (or two) just before test_main() but that can easily be fixed on commit. -- nosy: +pitrou stage: -> commit review versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2 ___ Python

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Brian Thorne added the comment: Cheers for the comments Eric. I've modified the patch accordingly. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22801/functools2.diff ___ Python tracker ___

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > Raymond, do we care whether or not the > pure Python version of functools.partial > supports inheritance and instance testing? We don't care. The docs make very few guarantees beyond the core functionality. Everything else is an implementation detail.

[issue12428] functools test coverage

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Raymond, do we care whether or not the pure Python version of functools.partial supports inheritance and instance testing? The constructor is technically documented as returning a "partial object" rather than a simple staticmethod instance with additional attri

[issue12428] functools test coverage

New submission from Brian Thorne : The test coverage for functools was down around ~60%, this is a patch to bring that up to ~98%. Made two changes to the Lib/functools.py file itself: 1) Moved the Python implementation of partial into Lib/functools.py from Lib/test/test_functools.py which ge