Message244238
I'm OK with the patch as is, but I'm definitely concerned about the maintainability of inspect.signature in general.
I'm trying to decide if a block comment covering the order of calling protocols that we check, and where we potentially recurse, would be a help (by providing a map of the function for the benefit of future maintainers) or a hindrance (by providing the opportunity for that map to get out of sync) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2015-05-28 01:25:07 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, petr.viktorin, yselivanov |
2015-05-28 01:25:07 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1432776307.11.0.150887240248.issue24298@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2015-05-28 01:25:07 | ncoghlan | link | issue24298 messages |
2015-05-28 01:25:06 | ncoghlan | create | |
|