Message257544
| Author |
gvanrossum |
| Recipients |
abarnert, gvanrossum, martin.panter, ncoghlan, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date |
2016年01月05日.20:13:22 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAP7+vJ+AJ7qRxO1brkHVhXNFzPrqhyxwNBWV5BFCGazVQUgxJw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1452024362.19.0.644074874027.issue25958@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
In response to Serhiy's comment regarding __copy__ etc.: while the
distinction is somewhat unfortunate, I think it's too late to make this
more consistent. I think it's fine that the special methods used by copy
and pickle protocols behave somewhat differently -- that's a totally
different area anyways (and not directly supported by the core language).
In contrast, __hash__, __iter__, __contains__, __reversed__, __iadd__ etc.
are much more core to the language (representing either builtin functions
or operations). Plus here we really need a way to signal the difference
between "not defined here so fall back on either a superclass or a
different protocol" and "defined here as not existing so cause an error
when used". So I don't think there's anything actionable here. |
|