Message188750
| Author |
gvanrossum |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, benjamin.peterson, brett.cannon, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, isoschiz, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pconnell, pitrou, ubershmekel |
| Date |
2013年05月09日.05:05:28 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAP7+vJJjU2kVBmPYFA3cjn+-A+0=QUBy=UaL+TLdySxG3cEXwA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1368069543.54.0.816321792328.issue17927@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
I thought about that but I like this version better because the super()
code does not have to know the details of how to find the cell.
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Nick Coghlan added the comment:
>
> Guido, did you try combining your first patch (clearing the local var when
> populating the cell) with your second patch (by only checking for a cell
> when the local var is cleared rather than when it is populated)?
>
> It seems slightly more logical to me to have a cell fallback for the
> "local ref is NULL" case than it does to special case "local ref is not
> NULL".
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org <javascript:;>>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17927>
> _______________________________________
> |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年05月09日 05:05:28 | gvanrossum | set | recipients:
+ gvanrossum, brett.cannon, georg.brandl, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, ubershmekel, pconnell, isoschiz |
| 2013年05月09日 05:05:28 | gvanrossum | link | issue17927 messages |
| 2013年05月09日 05:05:28 | gvanrossum | create |
|