Anthony Tolle wrote:
> As for a more concrete example, imagine the wrapper using the inspect
> module to gather some information about the stack frame and passing it
> along to selected methods.
That's still not very concrete. It doesn't demonstrate
why you would want to find out that particular p
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> He's writing a variant of 'partial' that inserts an argument *after*
> the 'self', if there is one
I'll need convincing that the user of such a function
isn't able to know whether the function he's wrapping
takes a self, and use an appropriate variation of
the partial func
Anthony Tolle wrote:
> So how does wrapper1 know whether it is wrapping a static method, a
> bound method, or an unbound method? Well, one way it could do this is
> to examine the type of the descriptor it is wrapping.
No, a wrapper can't distinguish between a plain function and
an unbound metho
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> functools.partial style functionality doesn't always play well
> with methods,
I can see it not working well with *unbound* methods. Bound
methods shouldn't be any problem, since from the outside
they're called just like any other function.
But applying partial to an unboun
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, a wrapper can't distinguish between a plain function and
> an unbound method this way, because it gets called before the
> function is put into a class. So it's always wrapping a plain
> function, not an unbound metho
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Anthony Tolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No, a wrapper can't distinguish between a plain function and
> > an unbound method this way, because it gets called before the
> > function
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Tolle wrote:
> > As for a more concrete example, imagine the wrapper using the inspect
> > module to gather some information about the stack frame and passing it
> > along to selected methods.
>
> That's still not v
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't see an error thrown with either the bound or unbound methods...
>
Sorry, I should have clarified. The error occurs when wrapping the
function as a descriptor, not when wrapping it with another function.
Here's a
