On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:54 AM Caleb Donovick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Here, `Child` will *not* match as a sequence, even though it probably > > should, > > Strong disagree, if I explicitly set `__match_seq__` to `False` in `Parent` > I probably have a good reason for it and would absolutely expect `Child` to > not match as a sequence. >
How much difference is there between: class Grandparent: """Not a sequence""" class Parent(Grandparent): """Also not a sequence""" class Child(Parent): """No sequences here""" and this: class Grandparent(list): """Is a sequence""" class Parent(Grandparent): """Explicitly not a sequence""" __match_seq__ = False class Child(Parent): """Shouldn't be a sequence""" ? Either way, Parent should function as a non-sequence. But if Child inherits from both Parent and tuple, it is most definitely a tuple, and therefore should be a sequence. With your proposed semantics, setting __match_seq__ to False is not simply saying "this isn't a sequence", but it's saying "prevent this from being a sequence". It's a stronger statement than simply undoing the declaration that it's a sequence. There would be no way to reset to the default state. Brandt's proposed semantics sound complicated, but as far as I can tell, they give sane results in all cases. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/GKOUSL2CPMO7NPPTK2E7XE7LXTPDVRDJ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/