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 | 2015-04-20.14:02:22 |
| 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 |
| 2015-04-20 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 |
| 2015-04-20 14:02:22 | eric.snow | link | issue23990 messages |
| 2015-04-20 14:02:22 | eric.snow | create | |