[Python-Dev] Use function names instead of functions for os.supports_dir_fd?

[Steven D'Aprano]

Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Python 3.3 introduced os.supports_dir_fd to check if some os functions
> do accept a file descriptor instead of a path. The problem is that
> os.supports_dir_fd is a list of functions, not a list of function
> names. If os functions are monkey patched, you cannot test anymore if
> a function supports file descriptor.

One of the dangers of monkey-patching.


> Monkey patching is a common practice in Python. test_os.py replaces
> os.exec*() functions temporary for example.


Perhaps for testing, but I don't think monkey-patching is common in production 
code. Perhaps you are thinking of Ruby :)


> It's also inconsistent with the new time.get_clock_info() function
> which expects the name of a time function, not the function directly.

Since functions are first-class objects in Python, and people should be used 
to passing functions around as parameters, perhaps it is better to say that 
get_clock_info is inconsistent with supports_dir_fd.

Personally, I prefer passing function objects rather than names, since the 
*name* of the function shouldn't matter. But since I recognise that other 
people may think differently, I would probably support passing both the name 
or the function object itself.



-- 
Steven