gh-124652: partialmethod simplifications

[dg-pb]

1. it is now untangled from partial (makes use of partial instead of containing any complexities of partial)
2. it has no need for any special-casing in inspect
3. its performance is now reasonable (for standard methods and partial objects)

partialmethod Benchmarks:

Setup

S="from functools import partialmethod, Placeholder@staticmethoddef s(a, b): pass@classmethoddef c(self, a, b): passdef m(self, a, b): passclass D: def __get__(self, obj, cls=None): return (lambda a, b: None)d = D()class A: @staticmethod def s(a, b): pass @classmethod def c(self, a, b): pass def m(self, a, b): pass d = D() ps = partialmethod(s, 1) pc = partialmethod(c, 1) pm = partialmethod(m, 1) pd = partialmethod(d, 1)a = A()"

C1='partialmethod(s, 1)'# staticmethod
C2='partialmethod(c, 1)'# classmethod
C3='partialmethod(m, 1)'# instance method
C4='partialmethod(d, 1)'# unknown descriptor
C5='A.ps(2)'
C6='A.pc(2)'
C7='a.pm(2)'
C8='a.pd(2)'
NOTE: construction cost for standard methods is obfuscated as they are constructed and cached on 1st call.
# BEFORE | AFTER
--------------------------- #-----------------$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C1# 920 ns | 390 ns$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C2# 1000 ns | 420 ns$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C3# 900 ns | 440 ns$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C4# 1000 ns | 600 ns
--------------------------- #-----------------$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C5# 1300 ns | 330 ns$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C6# 830 ns | 390 ns$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C7# 800 ns | 390 ns$PYEXE -m timeit -s $S$C8# 1300 ns | 890 ns

• Issue: functools.partialmethod simplification #124652

[dg-pb]

Removed keyword Placeholder restriction from this and will issue a separate PR after. Felt like too much is packed into 1 PR.

[eendebakpt]

@dg-pb Is this PR still relevant or have you opened PRs for the different components? If so, can we close this one?

[dg-pb]

It is still relevant.
On my part this is ready for review.
Given partial.Placeholder has been merged recently and not in production I wasn't sure if splitting is necessary.

I could factor "allowing trailing placeholders" into a separate one if it is preferred.

[eendebakpt]

It is still relevant. On my part this is ready for review. Given partial.Placeholder has been merged recently and not in production I wasn't sure if splitting is necessary.

I could factor "allowing trailing placeholders" into a separate one if it is preferred.

I have not looked at all the changes in detail, but the PR seems big and that could be a reason this PR has not yet been reviewed. In the description at least 3 changes are mentioned (allowing placeholders, performance, refactor for partialmethod). If possible, I would advice to split the PR into multiple PRs.

[dg-pb]

at least 3 changes are mentioned

There are 2 really.

Performance benefit is a consequence of "allowing trailing placeholders".

I don't mind making changes, splitting as desired etc, but I would like these to be called by reviewer. Otherwise, I already have experience by trying to guess what reviewer might prefer, making changes per suggestions of others, etc and when final reviewer comes he desires to be different again and I need to keep changing things more times than necessary.

And either way these would need to be considered at the same time. I.e. allowing or not allowing trailing placeholders are both ok. There is a slight advantage for allowing them as it makes it a bit more flexible and explicit. While looking at partial from the POV of using it on methods, the advantages and rationale for allowing them can be seen more clearly putting it on a favourable side (at least this is my conclusion).

Also, if I split now, then I have PRs hanging on unmerged code.

the PR seems big

It isn't that big. Most of it is Pure Python rewrite of partialmethod and the implementation is much simpler to follow than the previous one.

[dg-pb]

As this series of partial related PRs started slowly moving, the path became a bit clearer and splitting this into 2 seems to be the best option to me now. Will do that shortly.

[dg-pb]

@serhiy-storchaka, just a gentle reminder.
This is ready for final review.

[serhiy-storchaka]

@dg-pb, I am reviewing, I just was very busy last days with other issue.

[dg-pb]

@serhiy-storchaka, I think it would be good to merge this. Otherwise, it will be sitting there for another version. inspect simplification is what I think has most value here.

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.