Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABicbJL8+y12y_xZi7riqmkd+BEt8LY1whkL=drt1U+OvFsVGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54c07d04$0$13012$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <54c6d7c2$0$12992$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.18178.1422380228.18130.python-list@python.org> <MPG.2f31f0482d3837cb98969f@nntp.aioe.org> <54c83ab4$0$12982$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <MPG.2f3318cb4d02fd059896b2@nntp.aioe.org> <mab931$qqu$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.18262.1422540523.18130.python-list@python.org> <54ca583e$0$13005$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.18276.1422555831.18130.python-list@python.org> <54ccc2fc$0$13009$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.18340.1422716000.18130.python-list@python.org> <54cd9a7a$0$12984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.18350.1422765114.18130.python-list@python.org> <e4b6415e-f3f0-4a47-8f66-6f39609df0f6@googlegroups.com> <54ce526a$0$13012$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <cj8e9sFb09iU1@mid.individual.net> <54cf242d$0$12991$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.18394.1422862939.18130.python-list@python.org> <54cf6836$0$12996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CABicbJL8+y12y_xZi7riqmkd+BEt8LY1whkL=drt1U+OvFsVGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 05:02:39 -0800
Subject: Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!)
To: "Steven D'Aprano" <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "comp.lang.python" <python-list@python.org>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.18399.1422882208.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 57
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:85077

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Both K.f and K.g are methods, even though only one meets the definition
>> given in the glossary. The glossary is wrong.
>
> I agree, it oversimplified and has made a useless distinction here.

Oops, I just realized why such a claim might be made: the
documentation probably wants to be able to say that any method can use
super(). So that's why it claims that it isn't a method unless it's
defined inside a class body.

-- Devin

>>>> Even if it is so defined, the definition is wrong. You can define methods
>>>> on an instance. I showed an example of an instance with its own personal
>>>> __dir__ method, and showed that dir() ignores it if the instance belongs
>>>> to a new-style class but uses it if it is an old-style class.
>>>
>>> You didn't define a method, you defined a callable attribute.
>>
>> That is wrong. I defined a method:
>>
>> py> from types import MethodType
>> py> type(instance.f) is MethodType
>> True
>>
>>
>> instance.f is a method by the glossary definition. Its type is identical to
>> types.MethodType, which is what I used to create a method by hand.
>
> You are assuming that they are both methods, just because they are
> instances of a type called "MethodType". This is like assuming that a
> Tree() object is made out of wood.
>
> The documentation is free to define things in terms other than types
> and be correct. There are many properties of functions-on-classes that
> callable instance attributes that are instances of MethodType do not
> have, as we've already noticed. isinstance can say one thing, and the
> documentation another, and both can be right, because they are saying
> different things.
>
>
> For an example we can all agree on, this is not an instance of
> collections.Iterable, but the docs claim it is iterable:
> https://docs.python.org/2/glossary.html#term-iterable
>
>     class MyIterable(object):
>         def __getitem__(self, i): return i
>
> The docs are not "wrong", they are just making a distinction for
> humans that is separate from the python types involved. This is OK.
>
> -- Devin