On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
That's actually quite an interesting idea, although I'm wondering if it could make some of our extant reference cycle issues associated with stack traces even worse. The fact that the patch is so simple is certainly rather appealing (although you have a few backwards compatibility issues to address, as I noted in my review).
Thanks for taking a look, Nick. I'm addressing the backward incompatible stuff in a new patch a little later, and have updated the issue regarding the reference cycles.
Also, I wouldn't be quite so quick to discard the function information in the class evaluation case. While the function involved there is a temporary one, it's still a real function.
Yeah, I had considered that. However, isn't that just a CPython implementation detail? Does that matter? I don't have a problem with setting f_func for classes (and whatever else). Just wanted to clarify first. Thanks. -eric
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia