[Patches] [ python-Patches-418390 ] static member functions

[noreply@sourceforge.net]

Patches item #418390, was updated on 2001-04-23 15:39
You can respond by visiting: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=418390&group_id=5470

Category: core (C code)
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
>Assigned to: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Summary: static member functions

Initial Comment:
This allows for class methods to be called statically 
without the need for workaround abuse as described in 
the python FAQ (or any other method involving grabbing 
the "im_func" member from an unbound method object).

This patch changes the "call_method" function in 
ceval.c. It removes the improper 'class type 
enforcement' on unbound method objects and just passes 
the arguments as is.

This allows for natural and clean static methods 
inside classes.

The only thing potentially broken with this patch is a 
looser guarantee that the "self" value for a method 
would be some inherited type instance. This is far 
less 'dangerous for abuse' than other python class 
designs (no private members, etc).

With this the static method example in the FAQ is much 
more cleanly realized. notice, no "self" member for 
static methods...


class C:
    count = 0   
    def __init__(self):
        C.count += 1
    def getcount():
        return C.count 
    def sum(x, y):
        return x + y
        
C(); C()
c = C()
print C.getcount()  # prints 3
print c.getcount()  # prints 3
print C.sum(27, 15) # prints 42


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2001-04-23 16:00

Message:
Logged In: NO 

btw, i did submit with my email address, but sourceforge 
has relabeled me as anonymous. please respond to

"pete at shinners dot org" 

should that be required. doh, i see sourceforge didn't 
respect my example formatting either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Mark Kimsal (hardcoreholly)
Date: 2001-04-23 15:47

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=89302

an application programmer could still secure the type of 
the arguments if s/he felt it was necessary by raising the 
unbound method exception if the first arg was not the 
expected type.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=418390&group_id=5470