Author larry
Recipients benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, larry, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, scoder, terry.reedy, yselivanov
Date 2014-02-03.09:49:58
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1391420998.31.0.445893789144.issue17159@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Not for builtin functions, but it's unclear to me why the API of
> builtin functions should be different from that of Python functions
> (except, as I said, for the existence of byte code).

I really don't follow you.  You seem to be saying that __text_signature__ is a bad idea, and keep talking about existing
APIs that provide for the same functionality, but you decline to name
specifics.

Be specific.  Let's say we remove __text_signature__.  How do we
now write a C extension in a way that we can have introspection
information for its callables?

If __text_signature__ is redundant with existing APIs, then we should remove it now before 3.4 ships.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-02-03 09:49:58larrysetrecipients: + larry, terry.reedy, ncoghlan, pitrou, scoder, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, python-dev, yselivanov
2014-02-03 09:49:58larrysetmessageid: <1391420998.31.0.445893789144.issue17159@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-02-03 09:49:58larrylinkissue17159 messages
2014-02-03 09:49:58larrycreate