Message241581
| Author | ionelmc |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Claudiu.Popa, belopolsky, christian.heimes, eric.snow, ethan.furman, ionelmc, jedwards, llllllllll, r.david.murray, rhettinger, steven.daprano, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2015-04-20.00:50:14 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CANkHFr8SfSdAuejwZXM=cpqXmXs2DfCWHJfcaUUKxNDzi-mPAA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <CALFfu7A0P9zBiOU_V5QXoQ2w7K6GUUVSkFpSLFR_X8PBbO3-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Eric Snow <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > It not a problem currently for callable. It is one you are proposing > to introduce. It is one which current users of callable don't have to > worry about. > > > > > Were do we draw the line here? > > We don't add to the problem. Instead, we work to decrease it. > What exactly are you proposing? Getting rid of AttributeError masking? I'm talking about applying an old design decision (AttributeError masking) in `callable`. Doesn't seem useful to talk about not having exception making unless you have a plan to remove that from other places (that's even harder than fixing `callable` IMO) just to fix this inconsistent handling in Python. Unless you think having inconsistent handling is OK. I do not think it's OK. There should be the same rules for attribute access everywhere. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-04-20 00:50:15 | ionelmc | set | recipients: + ionelmc, rhettinger, terry.reedy, belopolsky, christian.heimes, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, Claudiu.Popa, ethan.furman, eric.snow, llllllllll, jedwards |
| 2015-04-20 00:50:15 | ionelmc | link | issue23990 messages |
| 2015-04-20 00:50:14 | ionelmc | create | |