On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer@ugent.be> wrote:
On 2018-04-13 21:30, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
It would be nice to have a section that specifically discusses the implications with respect to other existing function-like tooling:  classmethod, staticmethod, partial, itemgetter, attrgetter, methodgetter, etc.

My hope is that there are no such implications. An important design goal of this PEP (which I believe I achieved) is that as long as you're doing duck typing, you should be safe. I believe that the tools in your list do exactly that.

It's only when you use inspect or when you do type checks that you will see the difference with this PEP.

That actually sounds like a pretty big problem. I'm sure there is lots of code that doesn't *just* duck-type nor calls inspect but uses isinstance() to decide how to extract the desired information.
 
After implementing the C code part of my PEP, there were only a relatively small number of test failures. You can look at this commit which contains all Python code changes of my implementation, it doesn't look so bad:

https://github.com/jdemeyer/cpython/commit/c404a8f1b7d9525dd2842712fe183a051a4b5094

For example, I would need to update the code in random._randbelow().

For the record, there are no test failures related to this, but maybe that's just because tests for this are missing.
 
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)