Message210103
| Author | larry |
|---|---|
| Recipients | benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, larry, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, scoder, terry.reedy, yselivanov |
| Date | 2014-02-03.09:49:58 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1391420998.31.0.445893789144.issue17159@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> Not for builtin functions, but it's unclear to me why the API of > builtin functions should be different from that of Python functions > (except, as I said, for the existence of byte code). I really don't follow you. You seem to be saying that __text_signature__ is a bad idea, and keep talking about existing APIs that provide for the same functionality, but you decline to name specifics. Be specific. Let's say we remove __text_signature__. How do we now write a C extension in a way that we can have introspection information for its callables? If __text_signature__ is redundant with existing APIs, then we should remove it now before 3.4 ships. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-02-03 09:49:58 | larry | set | recipients: + larry, terry.reedy, ncoghlan, pitrou, scoder, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, python-dev, yselivanov |
| 2014-02-03 09:49:58 | larry | set | messageid: <1391420998.31.0.445893789144.issue17159@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014-02-03 09:49:58 | larry | link | issue17159 messages |
| 2014-02-03 09:49:58 | larry | create | |