Message138201
| Author | eric.araujo |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Darren.Dale, benjamin.peterson, daniel.urban, dsdale24, eric.araujo, eric.snow, michael.foord, ncoghlan, stutzbach |
| Date | 2011-06-12.09:10:59 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00020668088 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1307869860.26.0.251712549564.issue11610@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> there's nothing an ABC can do to stop someone (for example) overriding > an abstract method or descriptor "foo" with "foo = 1". I’ve find it useful to use an abstractproperty to specify an attribute that concrete subclasses have to define. Was that wrong? From a technical viewpoint, I replaced a method with a data attribute, but from a doc/human viewpoint, replacing a property with a regular attribute did not seem wrong to me. So, if there are guidelines about “almost certainly wrong” uses of the ABC machinery, they should IMO be documented. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-06-12 09:11:00 | eric.araujo | set | recipients: + eric.araujo, ncoghlan, benjamin.peterson, stutzbach, michael.foord, daniel.urban, dsdale24, eric.snow, Darren.Dale |
| 2011-06-12 09:11:00 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1307869860.26.0.251712549564.issue11610@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011-06-12 09:10:59 | eric.araujo | link | issue11610 messages |
| 2011-06-12 09:10:59 | eric.araujo | create | |