Message241650
| Author |
eric.snow |
| Recipients |
Claudiu.Popa, belopolsky, christian.heimes, eric.snow, ethan.furman, ionelmc, jedwards, llllllllll, r.david.murray, rhettinger, steven.daprano, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2015年04月20日.14:02:22 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CALFfu7C_7bB4V7+qDQr_Q37zOnrYKm_bD9rB3a+diB-7_MiwAg@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<CANkHFr8qkxgAs1wRZHfTUYOga1qdcBT2O7G6kAr7-uj3Cnfh+Q@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content |
> Ionel Cristian Mărieș added the comment:
> Also, descriptors are a core mechanism in new-style classes - you can't
> have methods without descriptors. Why would you even consider removing
> descriptors from the special method lookup if that's part of the object
> model design?
Also, we are not changing anything here and we are not considering
removing descriptors from special method lookup. This is the way it
has been for a long time for code that *checks* for special method
capability. As RDM and I have both said, changing that would break
backward compatibility. As I've already explained, I also think it is
wrong. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2015年04月20日 14:02:22 | eric.snow | set | recipients:
+ eric.snow, rhettinger, terry.reedy, belopolsky, christian.heimes, ionelmc, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, Claudiu.Popa, ethan.furman, llllllllll, jedwards |
| 2015年04月20日 14:02:22 | eric.snow | link | issue23990 messages |
| 2015年04月20日 14:02:22 | eric.snow | create |
|