Author ncoghlan
Recipients ncoghlan, petr.viktorin, yselivanov
Date 2015-05-28.01:25:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1432776307.11.0.150887240248.issue24298@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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)
History
Date User Action Args
2015-05-28 01:25:07ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, petr.viktorin, yselivanov
2015-05-28 01:25:07ncoghlansetmessageid: <1432776307.11.0.150887240248.issue24298@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-05-28 01:25:07ncoghlanlinkissue24298 messages
2015-05-28 01:25:06ncoghlancreate