I come to praise .join, not to bury it...

Steve Holden sholden at holdenweb.com
Wed Mar 7 20:24:38 CET 2001

"Rainer Deyke" <root at rainerdeyke.com> wrote in message
news:gRup6.364652$ge4.128679630 at news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9850ge013ns at news1.newsguy.com...
> > in fact, just about any test for 'IS object X of exact type
> > Y' you can find in the Python sources, unless they are
> > shortcut-like 'accelerators' for a special case _before_
> > the more-general request 'please o mr X try to behave like
> > an Y, are you able to?', can be seen as implementation
> > defects, in my personal opinion.
> I'm curious: how do you feel about the automagic conversions of functions
> (and only true function, not function-like objects) into unbound methods,
> and from unbound methods into bound methods?  I'm thinking that the former
> could be eliminated entirely, and the latter replaced by a __bind__ magic
> method that allows the mechanism to apply to function-like objects.
Surely no type conversion is involved: the interpreter just converts



    class.method(instance, *args)


More information about the Python-list mailing list