Method returning new instance of class?
ajsiegel at optonline.com
Wed Sep 8 04:14:24 CEST 2004
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:29:15 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis"
<martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> """The copy module does not use the copy_reg registration module."""
>> This is actually pretty esoteric stuff for someone who has not delved
>> into these mysteries before, so I am a bit lost.
>It appears that this documentation is incorrect.
I knew that that was one of the possibilities. On the other hand I
wouldn't have bet much on it. An equally live possiblity was that I
was misunderstanding correct documentation - considering this is all
a bit foggy to me at the moment.
Thanks for making that much clear.
> Just look at the
>source of copy.py and see for yourself:
>from copy_reg import dispatch_table
> reductor = dispatch_table.get(cls)
>> Is it that copy_reg comes into play in defining a custom method for
>> copying, that is called as a regular method, and not via the copy
>It is a customization of the copy module.
>> Does anyone have a reference for copy_reg used in the specific context
>> of copying, rather than pickling?
>Sure: Assume you want to copy file objects, and that this should create
>a file object for the same file name and mode, but starting from the
>beginning. You do
> return file, (f.name, f.mode)
>copy_reg.pickle(file, copy_file, file)
>Then you can do
> >>> f=open("/etc/passwd","r")
> >>> f
><open file '/etc/passwd', mode 'r' at 0x401f7760>
> >>> f.readline()
> >>> g=copy.copy(f)
> >>> g
><open file '/etc/passwd', mode 'r' at 0x401f7060>
> >>> g.readline()
And thanks for that. Which among other things seems to tell me that I
can in fact follow the documentation, and what else I can find, on
copy_reg and pickling pretty much verbatim, when focusing on copying
as my end result. Wasn't sure, among other things, whether the same
copy_reg.pickle(xx) syntax applied to copying application. Aparently
More information about the Python-list