Message316644
| Author | eric.smith |
|---|---|
| Recipients | eric.smith, ned.deily |
| Date | 2018-05-15.12:01:16 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1526385676.97.0.682650639539.issue33517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
With the recent (and ongoing) change to string annotations, it's no longer obvious what the type of a field is (normal, ClassVar, or InitVar). I propose exposing the heretofore undocumented _field_type to the repr. Instead of writing it directly, I'm going to make it say one of: _field_type=_FIELD _field_type=_FIELD_CLASSVAR _field_type=_FIELD_INITVAR This is because it's an object reference, and would otherwise look like: _field_type=<object object at 0x10cc5f1f0> Which is all but useless. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-05-15 12:01:17 | eric.smith | set | recipients: + eric.smith, ned.deily |
| 2018-05-15 12:01:16 | eric.smith | set | messageid: <1526385676.97.0.682650639539.issue33517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-05-15 12:01:16 | eric.smith | link | issue33517 messages |
| 2018-05-15 12:01:16 | eric.smith | create | |