[Python-Dev] "PyObject *module" for module-level functions?
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Nov 5 00:36:45 CET 2013
On 5 Nov 2013 08:49, "Larry Hastings" <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
> When Clinic generates a function, it knows what kind of callable it
represents, and it names the first argument (the "PyObject *") accordingly:
> module-level function ("self"),
> method ("self"),
> class method ("cls"), or
> class static ("null").
> I now boldly propose that for the first one, the module-level function,
the PyObject * parameter should be named "module". The object passed in is
the module object, it's not a "self" in any conventional sense of the word.
> This would enhance readability, as I assert the name "self" there is
confusing. The argument is rarely used on module-level functions, and very
little code is converted right now using Clinic anyway. I therefore assert
this change would break very little code, and the code that did get broken
by this change could be fixed as part of the process of converting it to
> But now would be the time to make this change, before doing the big push
to convert to Clinic. (A couple of weeks ago would have been even
> +1? -1?
+1 from me, as they're not really methods of the module instance (i.e.
dynamically bound when retrieved from the module), even though they behave
a little like they are.
Instead of relying on the descriptor protocol (which doesn't trigger
because module level functions are stored in an instance namespace), we
play games when creating the Python level callables during module creation
in order to prebind the module object.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev