On 2012-06-19, at 1:03 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > Yury Selivanov wrote: >> On 2012-06-19, at 11:55 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: >>> Yury Selivanov wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted: >>>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/ >>>> Summary: >>>> 1. What was 'Signature.__deepcopy__' is now 'Signature.__copy__'. >>>> __copy__ creates a shallow copy of Signature, shallow copying its >>>> Parameters as well. >>>> 2. 'Signature.format()' was removed. I think we'll add something >>>> to customize formatting later, in 3.4. Although, Signature still has >>>> its __str__ method. >>>> 3. Built-in ('C') functions no longer have mutable '__signature__' >>>> attribute, that patch was reverted. In the "Design Considerations" >>>> section we stated clear that we don't support some callables. >>>> 4. Positions of keyword-only parameters now longer affect equality >>>> testing of Signatures, i.e. 'foo(*, a, b)' is equal to 'foo(*, b, a)' >>>> (Thanks to Jim Jewett for pointing that out) >>>> The only question we have now is: when we do equality test between >>>> Signatures, should we account for positional-only, var_positional >>>> and var_keyword arguments names? So that: 'foo(*args)' will >>>> be equal to 'bar(*arguments)', but not to 'spam(*coordinates:int)' >>>> (Again, I think that's a Jim's idea) >>> There are obviously cases where the names should be considered (such as >>> foo(source, dest) and bar(dest, source) ) and cases where it should not be >>> (spam(text, count) and eggs(txt, cnt) )... >>> >>> I think the default implementation should be strict (names are considered) >>> as it is safer to have a false negative than a false positive. >> +1 >>> However, rather than force everyone who is willing to cope with the >>> possible false positives from rewriting a Signature equality routine that >>> ignores names, perhaps a method can be added to the class that does so? >>> >>> class Signature: >>> . . . >>> def equivalent(self, other): >>> "compares two Signatures for equality (ignores parameter names)" >>> . . . >> I don't think that comparing signatures will be a common operation, >> so maybe we can postpone adding any additional methods for that? > > Sure, toss it in the list of possible adds for 3.4. > > At some point it was suggested that Signature be put in provisionally so we > could modify the API if needed -- are we doing that?
Well, it doesn't have much of an API right now (just few methods) - Yury _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
