mhansen: Does anyone feel up for reviewing #3781 for me?
[4:21pm] ncalexan: I'll look at it, one moment. I've wanted
this for a while.
[4:22pm] mhansen: Awesome. It doesn't work on C extension
types though since they don't have a __dict__. This could
be done by storing the cache in the decorator object with
a weakref though.
[4:22pm] ncalexan: The problem is much more complicated
than this.
[4:23pm] ncalexan: Okay, there are other problems too,
like un-hashable arguments will break it.
[4:23pm] mhansen: Yep
[4:23pm] ncalexan: And there is no way to clear the cache...
[4:23pm] ncalexan: And the tests don't actually demonstrate
that the cache is workin.
[4:24pm] ncalexan: (One could touch the cache with an
incorrect answer, then verify it is "correctly" returning
that value)
[4:25pm] ncalexan: For what it is, though, it's fine. It
will hurt nothing -- shall I review positive?
[4:26pm] mhansen: If you could, that'd be great. I do
know it's limitations, but there are some big patches
going in that depend on it. I'll make a ticket with
your comments for improvement.
[4:28pm] ncalexan: How big are the big patches? In fact,
I don't care -- this declares the intent nicely and can be
upgraded independently later. One moment.
