[stdlib-sig] proposed removal: the types module
jyasskin at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 18:16:28 CEST 2008
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Facundo Batista
<facundobatista at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/4/3, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at gmail.com>:
> > Just to pick one, try "type(...)". It's generally clearer to take an
> > example of what you want and ask for its type, than to look in the
> > types module.
> For example, I have this very complex class:
> >>> class C:
> ... def met(self):
> ... pass
> >>> c = C()
> I want, from outside to create a new method in it. So, I do the following:
> >>> t = type(c.met)
> >>> t()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> TypeError: method expected 2 arguments, got 0
> Ouch, it wasn't so easy. I realize myself I need to read the docs.
> Where should I look for those docs and/or examples?
If you're just looking for a place to stash the documentation,
But looking at Steven's question made me change my mind. It's true
that types.CodeType can be replaced by
type(any_user_defined_function.__code__), but it makes me nervous to
assume that all code objects will always be exactly the same type.
Having a name in a standard place seems more reliable.
More information about the stdlib-sig