Message233173
| Author |
gmt |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, cgrohmann, djc, dstufft, eric.araujo, gmt, scoder |
| Date |
2014年12月29日.11:55:02 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1419854103.32.0.914804062743.issue23102@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Perhaps it is worth addressing, briefly, the following hypothetical question, as a litmus test against the faint dis-encapsulation code-smell some folks might be picking up from this:
In a hypothetcial world without setuptools, would these changes have merit?
I'd say, technically, yes. In the Extension case, we are just really trying to ask, "is it a tuple", and in the Distribution case, "Can we use this thing to finalize/reinitialize Commands?", so, in theory, at least, these isinstance() checks are less pythonic than the hasattr checks in my patches.
That stated, I think isinstance was the sensible way to code this in a vacuum, and obviously, I would never have thought this was a fantastic and self-evident proposal, were it not for these setuptools problems. |
|