Message138201
| Author |
eric.araujo |
| Recipients |
Darren.Dale, benjamin.peterson, daniel.urban, dsdale24, eric.araujo, eric.snow, michael.foord, ncoghlan, stutzbach |
| Date |
2011年06月12日.09:10:59 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00020668088 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1307869860.26.0.251712549564.issue11610@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> there's nothing an ABC can do to stop someone (for example) overriding
> an abstract method or descriptor "foo" with "foo = 1".
I’ve find it useful to use an abstractproperty to specify an attribute that concrete subclasses have to define. Was that wrong? From a technical viewpoint, I replaced a method with a data attribute, but from a doc/human viewpoint, replacing a property with a regular attribute did not seem wrong to me.
So, if there are guidelines about "almost certainly wrong" uses of the ABC machinery, they should IMO be documented. |
|