Guido> My point is that it's futile to use callable() -- even if it
Guido> passes, you have no assurance that you actually have a valid
Guido> callback. So why bother with it at all? It's counter to the
Guido> spirit of Python. If someone passes you a bad callback, they will
Gu
On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no problems with Python being untyped. But I want that error
> stack traces provide some useful information as possible with reasonable
> effort and that errors happen as early as possible. In particular, stack
> trace should mention
On 4/8/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > > What if someone passes a callable that doesn't have the expected
> > > > signature?
> > >
> > > Well,
At 08:01 PM 4/8/2007 +0400, Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
>On 4/8/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > > What if someone passes a callable that doesn't have the expected
> signature?
> > > Well, I do
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > What if someone passes a callable that doesn't have the expected
> > > signature?
> >
> > Well, I don't know a way to catch such situations now, so removing
> >
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > What if someone passes a callable that doesn't have the expected
> > > signature?
> >
> > Well, I don't know a way to catch such situations now, so removing
> > callable() will not mak
On 4/8/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > What if someone passes a callable that doesn't have the expected
> > > signature?
> > Well, I don't know a way to catch such situations now, so removing
On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > assert hasattr(x, '__call__')
> >
> > I note that callable() was introduced before all callable objects had
> > a __call__ attribute. This is no longer the case, so it's not needed.
> I just didn't think about that possibility. If that work
On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > What if someone passes a callable that doesn't have the expected signature?
>
> Well, I don't know a way to catch such situations now, so removing
> callable() will not make it worse (even if you don't know about ha
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Additionally consider something like
> >
> > something.set_callback (x)
> >
> > Assume that set_callback() wants to check if `x' is callable at
> > all, to raise exception early and make error tracking easie
On 4/8/07, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen in PEP 3100 that callable() function is planned to be
> removed in Python 3000 with this replacement: "just call the object
> and catch the exception???". For one, the object (if it is
> callable) can raise exception itself, so yo
> I have seen in PEP 3100 that callable() function is planned to be
> removed in Python 3000 with this replacement: "just call the object
> and catch the exception???". For one, the object (if it is
> callable) can raise exception itself, so you need to somehow to
> differentiate between exception
12 matches
Mail list logo
